Monthly Archives: September 2013

There is always another side to a story


You have to hand it to the Australian media, because they are simply ignorant in regard to the situation in the USA in regard to guns, ownership of guns, and illegal guns.

As you are no doubt aware, there was yet another mass shooting, this time in Chicago. None of the victims of this shooting have died, but a child is critical in hospital.

The Australian media are playing this up to the hilt and the emphasis is, of course on gun ownership. I personally think that this is totally ludicrous and shameful because it leads Australians into believing that the incident has something to do with the legal ownership of guns, where owners use their weapons in a responsible manner.

Now let’s get down to the facts about the story, because after all, the incident happened in Chicago. The neighbourhood is a black one called the Yards, or something like that. All of the victims were teenagers, and it happened at night. One person has identified a perpetrator as someone with dreadlocks.  The Australian media neglects to mention the small fact that gun ownership up until now has been illegal in Chicago, leaving all the teenagers vulnerable to such a situation in the first place. The Australian media also neglects to mention that this kind of gun violence in Chicago is nothing new. Instead they have sensationalized a story where illegal gun ownership is involved.

The Australian media has not corrected information about what took place in the Naval Yard in Washington D.C. They had persisted with the meme that the gunman used an AR-15. You will not hear anything about the fact that the gun itself was illegal because he made it into a sawn off shotgun. So here again, you have a gun legally purchased that ends up being illegal, and the press actually suppresses that information because it does not fit in with their agenda.

You can also bet that the Australian media will not touch the possibility that Aaron Alexis was most likely polar bear hunting. You will also not hear about the fact that Aaron Alexis set up a web page that had nothing to do with Buddhism… but it had something to do with Islam… oops!!

When left wing journalists control the media it is impossible for people to get any real news because everything is filtered through a left wing prism that is nothing like the reality of a situation. I could spend time writing about the fact that, shock horror, there is only one woman in the Cabinet of the new government. Actually, there is only one woman in the inner circle and she is our new Foreign Minister. This is an achievement because Julie Bishop has become the first Australian woman to hold that position. Instead, Julie Bishop has been slammed by the feminists who claim that she is nothing more than a token female presence…. some token!!  The Opposition has called Julie Bishop mean and petty because she told Steve Bracks that he was not required for a position in New York. Now, the fact is that the new Government warned, when they were in Opposition that the Gillard government should not appoint this person to the role, but they did that anyway. All other ALP appointees, including Kim Beazley who is the US Ambassador will remain at their posts… yet the ALP have been spinning it for all it is worth in their faux outrage because this appointment was nixed. It should be because Steve Bracks had become involved in political campaigning during the election period. As such he would have difficulty being non-partisan. Besides that, as a Labor Premier of Victoria in the past he was hopeless, and he managed to not get himself investigated for corruption in high office by resigning and claiming he wanted to spend time with his family.

Advertisements

Revisionist History, Dan Brown and Languedoc


Well, it seems that I was on the right track about the Knights Templar and that I managed to interpret correctly the hints made by Sir Walter Scott about the militant monks. They were considered to be heretics by the beginning of the 13th century. When writing Ivanhoe, Sir Walter Scott dropped a very big hint as to why the Knights Templar ended up in demise, and why their stronghold in Languedoc (the Pyrenees) was beseiged. It was all about the Cathars. There were several hints in the novel Ivanhoe and I managed to pick up on those hints, thus my interest in the subject.

Now, I am here to tell you that I am not a fan of Dan Brown. I have not read his stupid Da Vinci code, and I have not seen the stupid movie. From the time that the Dan Brown novel had become popular I took the view that what facts I did learn had shown him to be wrong…. and my assessment is in fact correct…. not that I am an historian or anything like that.

By researching on the name Languedoc, I came across a lot of historical revisionism… and that is also a dig at Wikpedia. One of the worst offenders is a man by the name of Baigent. The issue here is that there is an attempt to cleanse the Cathar of their own impurities, and to make them out to be victims. What stood out in the matter that I was reading last night was the dismissiveness regarding the only primary documents that come from the Catholic Church. These documents are in fact the diaries of St. Bernard of Claivaux who was one of the Inquistitors tasked with rooting out the heretic Cathars.  Yes, I prefer the historical documents over the work of people who dismiss this out of hand. The other thing I note is the bloating of the numbers who were actually killed. I would divide those numbers by the power of 10 to come up with a better idea of the population of Languedoc, and especially of the town of Beziers where the population was killed. The anti-Catholic element are prone to exaggeration.

Cathars were known as the Pure Ones. They were not Christian even though they had a baptism. They had only one sacrament, the Consolatum and that was consumed prior to death. Once the Consolatum was administered the person would refuse to eat or drink anything thus ending their lives. (It reminds me of the methods used for voluntary euthanasia where patients are denied food and water for several days until they die  – this was the death sentence handed down to Teri Schindler-Schiavo by her husband’s selfish actions). The Cathars were dualists, believing in a God of Good, and a God of Evil, just like the Manichees. If you know the story of St. Augustine, then you would have heard about the Manichees and what the preached, because prior to his conversion tot he Christian faith, Augustine had flirted with the Manichees.  The Cathars did not eat meat, thus they were vegans, but they did allow the eating of fish.  The Cathars frowned upon marriage, and they frowned upon having children. You can draw your own conclusions about their sexual proclivities… I drew mine and it has left a very sour taste.

Dan Brown took some of they myths surrounding the Cathars to come up with his laughable and inaccurate novel, the Da Vinci Code. The Cathars did in fact use books that came from the early Christian period written by heretics of that time that made some outlandish claims about Jesus and Mary of Magdala, including the ludicrous claims that they were married and that they had children, whose descendants were killed during the 13th century. Those documents were unearthed at the Hag Nammadi around 1945. None of those documents should be taken as being verifiable with regard to being genuine Christian. There were oral traditions that had been handed down from the earliest of these heretics.

In being dismissive about the primary documents of the period, the writer of the Wikpedia article, as well as one other that I read last night, claimed that there was only what was available from the Catholic Church because the Church destroyed the documents of the Cathars. The problem is, that is utter b.s. and is nothing more than modern revision because these Cathars were nothing like what was claimed. They were not philosophers or anything like that!!  Did they deserve to die the way that they did during that crusade against them? Probably not, but we need to have regard to the times in which it all happened, as well as the thinking of those who saw them as a menace and as treasonous as far as the State was concerned. It was not just about the Church or Christianity, it was about their open rebellion against the State that was the true issue.

Another point to make here is that there is in fact an estate that was owned by the Knights Templar in England. The name was not Templestowe, but was Neuhusan. The property had originally belonged to the Saxons, Dunstan and Glunier but it was given tot he Knights Templar by the king.

Catharism has been extremely difficult to root out and to forever have it deleted from society. Even today we have a rise in Catharism. Today it is known as Veganism.  It is more than just being a Vegetarian and it involves refusing to eat eggs, fish etc.  (Note some people do not eat eggs because eggs make them feel sick). These Vegans consider themselves to be morally pure even though they behave in an immoral fashion. They refuse to wear animal products and they bang on about animal rights etc. Their idea of morality is all about not killing animals. They behave in a cult like fashion, and if anyone should not follow their rules, well…. all hell breaks loose.   However, it is their lack of sexual morals that makes them a real stand out and shows that they are just a modern version of the old Cathars who also lacked sexual morals even though they considered themselves to the the Pure Ones.

Ivanhoe actually contained some hints regarding these moral juxtapositions. It came through in the character of Brian the Knights Templar who kidnapped Rebecca.  The point about Brian is the fact that he was a monk was not supposed to take on a wife, yet he wanted to marry Rebecca the Jewess. It also came through with the dialogue from the head of the Knights Templar, Beaunoir who was investigating Brian.  There were hints within the dialogue that suggest the notion of Purity that one ascribes to the Cathars.

What Are The Odds ?….. The DC Navy Yard PC Question/Motive The Media Will Not Touch


I am prepared to go there with Sundance on this one. I was wondering whether this was an extreme case of polar bear hunting.

The Navy Yard Attack: Part II


Comments made by Mike hold true in Australia.
The worst Australian massacre in Australia occurred at Port Arthur in Tasmania. This is the former prison for colonial convicts and today it is a tourist spot. It is not the kind of place one would expect to find people carrying guns.
There are other gun massacres such as the one known as the Hoddle Street massacre. Perhaps if the victims had carried a gun the outcome might have been different.
I think there are times when a case can be made for carrying weapons, and that is the reason that I remain pro-legal carrying of guns.
We continue to have gun deaths here in Australia. The majority happen to be in a sub-group of bikies and drug dealers, mostly of Middle Eastern origin. The guns themselves were mostly illegal.

Stately McDaniel Manor

Daily NewsSufficient information has come to light to offer at least a bit more informed commentary on the Navy Yard shooting of 09-16-13. The media and various politicians have predictably renewed their calls for additional gun control.  Several readers commenting onmy initial article on this incident have likewise been predictable.

Regular reader and commenter SlingTrebuchet wrote in part:

What if all the military personnel on the base had been armed?

What if many of the civilians on the base had been armed?

The narrative here is that armed individuals on the ground would have lessened the casualty count.
Is this actually true?

The situation appears to have been chaotic.
At one stage there were reports of two other shooters.

One was said to be in ‘military-type’ clothing and carrying a handgun. This person was later apparently identified as ‘legitimate’.
What is interesting about this ‘legitimate’ person is that witnesses were reporting him as…

View original post 3,029 more words

Obama, Zimmerman, Shepard and our Agenda Driven Media


Justice For All

Last Tuesday President Obama gave a televised speech to the Nation which culminated, at least for now our official involvement in the Syrian civil war.  That was not what made the speech different but that at the time we were making the speech, which was a plea to change the minds of the people and support military intervention in Syria,  we had already washed our hands of the whole issue. and had punted to the Russians.  This was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.  The media which had been protective of its President, and had not allowed dissension finally let loose and the criticism was coming from everywhere.  Think Progress tried to turn the debacle around by proclaiming the Administration’s strategy brilliant in letting the Russians deal with it.  It failed, its readers themselves mocked the article, how can you be brilliant to something that happened inadvertently and…

View original post 1,527 more words

what a difference a day makes


There is nothing worse than a mass shooting, especially in the USA. Inevitably, it turns out that the shooter (when not a jihadi) had mental issues. The latest example is no different from the young man responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting, or the man responsible for the Aurora theatre massacre, or the young man who attempted to kill Gabby Giffords. It looks like he was mentally ill and nothing was done to help him with that mental illness. At the very least this man had a form of mental illness involving paranoia (this is not PTSD). Note: Jihad is not mental illness, it is a deliberate act perpetuated upon innocent victims because they refuse to bend to the will of the jihadi.

The narrative regarding the shooting at the Washington Naval Dockyard continues to shift sideways. Yesterday there was talk about the fact that an AR-15 rifle was used, except of course, an AR-15 rifle was not used. The police have released information that the guns found on the person of Aaron Alexis were: two handguns obtained from the location itself, and a shotgun that he brought on to the base. He used the shotgun to kill the entrance guard and then took his handgun before moving into the building. He then used the shotgun to pop off people in the atrium below him as he was on either the 4th or the 3rd floor.

Whilst I am not a gun user or “fanatic” I am not pushing the barrow for the control of legally owned guns. This is because this is yet another case where I think what is needed is a proper background check before a person can even obtain a license to own guns.  The system failed to pick up that Aaron Alexis was a disaster about to happen. He was able to purchase that shotgun from a gun dealer. There was no way that the dealer could know that Aaron Alexis was going to use the weapon for polar bear hunting and that is because there were no recorded convictions over his misuse of firearms in the past. The system itself let everyone down.

The question I have: once again we see how the present system has failed to keep people safe, what do we do about that situation?

Clearly, the attempts at gun control are not the answer to the question that I am asking. It would seem that a gun register or anything approaching that is unacceptable to most, and I think in essence I agree that it is unacceptable since I am thinking about the potential for abuse.

I continue to see the larger issue being that of the ownership of illegal guns, rather than the ownership of legal guns. One woman who was inside the building when the shooting began stated that she wished that she had been allowed to conceal carry and to have a gun on her person when at work. I assume that what she means is that he shooter could have been stopped by someone who had a conceal carry before 12 victims were killed. In essence I agree with her logic.

Here in Australia we have had more drive-by shootings – normally these are non-fatal. We have also had more deaths caused by stabbings. Ah yes, I hear you say, with all of these stabbing deaths, let’s ban the use of knives!!

I wonder how many people have contemplated the number of deaths that were caused by the use of bow and arrow? King Richard the Lionheart was downed by an arrow, although he later died as gangrene had set into the wound. What about all those deaths caused by lances used during a joust? What about all those sword related deaths?  Do you get my drift in asking these questions? The methods for bringing about death and desruction have dramatically changed. However, anything can be used as a weapon and cause death if someone is so inclined. In these mass killings the method has been with a rifle and a bullet, but in China, there have been mass killings by knife wielding individuals. I think that if someone wants to kill then any available weapon will do the job.

One of the largest mass murders in the USA remains that of the one perpetrated at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh and his offsiders. It is because that incident was never fully investigated and the third person not identified that there is a wrong belief about the motivations behind the explosion. Whilst Nicholls and McVeigh were Sovereign citizens,  I do not believe that this was their motivation. I do in fact think that John Doe #3 holds the key to motivation for that bombing.  If anything both men were the pawns of John Doe #3 because they were already disaffected due to Ruby Ridge and Waco. Neither event was actually sufficient for them to set about learning how to make a car bomb. This is the whole point of what I am saying – mass murderers choose their weapons carefully. Nicholls and McVeigh chose fertilizer, not guns.

Following up the historical period for Ivanhoe


It has to be remembered that Sir Walter Scott wrote what we know to be an historical romance. In the past I have read a few novels that have had a similar theme. One such novel was simply titled Katherine and it was about the woman who was the mistress of John of Gaunt, an affair that produced 4 children. They did marry and their children were legitimized. It was through this family that we have the rise of the Tudor kings with a return to stability in England. That stability only came after the hundred years war with France as well as the Wars of the Roses.

It was all about inheritance and it was all about claims to the English throne. The Duke of Normandy, otherwise known as William the Conqueror had a claim on the English throne. He came to England with the purpose of claiming that which he was supposed to inherit. (I am relying on the second hand information from Wikpedia, and yes I think the information is deficient but it is sufficient to get some idea about the period in general).

First of all, this was a period that had seen the collapse of the Roman empire. As a result of that collapse the “Church” assumed some of the powers that had been held by the Roman Emperor.  I give this as a kind of background that leads into the reasons as to why the Princes of Europe wanted to be freed from the power of the Vatican. It is also the reason why I do believe so strongly in the separation of the powers of Church and State.  The power that the Church assumed in this period meant that like the former pagan States, the Church considered any type of rebellion to be akin to treason against the State (if that makes any sense to you).

Second, most of the noble families of Europe were related to each other through inter-marriage. This is particularly true with regard to the noble families in England and France, especially the Anjou family in Normandy.  Richard the Lionheart and Prince John were members of the Anjou family. Prince Philip of France was a cousin or relative of some kind, which explains why Prince John (later King John) plotted with Philip to keep Richard from returning.  The nobles who plotted with prince John committed treason against the Crown. In the novel Ivanhoe the plotters are named, and the Malvoision brothers are punished for their treason by king Richard the Lionheart.

I am not here to criticize some of the things that Richard the Lionheart might have done because our sense of morality is different from how people thought more than 500 years ago. For example, I saw mention of a place named Acres. Since I do not know the details of what took place or the reason for any punishment then I cannot possibly make a judgement call with how people thought during that period. What I do know is that according to legend Richard the Lionheart was loved and prince John was hated by the people of England. What I do know is that certain of the Norman-English nobels plotted with John to help him keep the throne when Richard was supposed to return from the Crusades.

Third, with regard to the Crusades, something happened in or near Jerusalem during the time that Richard was in the region. It involved the Knights Templar and seems to have been some form of rebellion. This is the sense that I got from what Sir Walter Scott wrote in the novel Ivanhoe. Whatever it was that happened, it was bad, and it split the crusaders in two. There were two groups of fighting monks, the Knights Templar and the Hospitalliers.

Fourth, this was a period in which there was a general need for church reform, especially when a lot of friars etc. were no longer all that dedicated to the Christian religion. It was also a period of zealotry where there were attempts at forced conversion (in my view this is foreign to the ideals of real Christianity because Jesus never forced anybody to join Him) and it was a period of extreme bigotry. In the book this bigotry permeates through the treatment meted out to Isaac the Jew and his daughter, the beautiful Rebecca.  It was also a period when the Church itself felt threatened because of the many heresies that abounded at the time. The growth of the Cathars was in fact a very big problem for the Church, and this is what led to the early Inquisitions which ended badly for anyone who was condemned to death for being a witch.  Rebecca almost met a fiery end because she was accused of being a witch, even though she was in fact a healer.

During this period England was constantly at war.  The five kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons were under threat from the Vikings (the Danes and Norwegians) and then by the Normans. The Norman invasion is best understood when one finds out that it was all about inheritance because the daughters of the kings of England were often married off to the kings and princes in France. The 100 years war was all about inheritance. The Wars of the Roses was all about inheritance and claims to the throne of England. These wars ended with a marriage that brought the two families together.

What I cannot verify, or at least I have not found sufficient information on the Internet is the reason that so many occupied the forests in the first place, and that includes the man known as Robin Hood. At this stage I am assuming that these men took up their abode in the forests because they were dispossessed Saxons, who were then made into outlaws. The kings had a habit of taking lands from the Anglo-Saxons and giving those lands to the Anglo-Norman families, thus the dispossessed needed somewhere to live.  According to the legend these thieves were quite honourable since they took from the “rich” and gave to those in need.

There are other novelists who have also romanticized Robin Hood and his merry men. These are the stories that tell us about the struggles against Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.  I remember reading one of these novels when I was a young person and yes I loved the story.

The issue is how these people came to be dispossessed, and how they came to band together, as well as whether or not they really were loyal to Richard the Lionheart.

Perhaps some of the answer comes in the background to the character of Ivanhoe, who was in fact Wilfred the son of Cedric. Richard had given him certain lands, but when Wilfred was in the Holy Land, John took the lands and gave them to his own nobels, thus Ivanhoe became the Dispossessed. The battle which is the big scene in the novel actually takes place in the lands that were supposed to belong to Wilfred Ivanhoe.  It would seem that these men who were living in the forest were probably dispossessed for a variety of reasons and probably by Prince John’s nobels who would shake them down for money to be given to the Treasury.  This would explain why there was some kind of code where they never took from poor people but helped them instead.

The period itself was very brutal. There is nothing nice about a jousting tournament. Men die during those events, depending upon the options taken by the challengers. There was a lot of blood and gore, and the wounds that they received in battle often turned out to be fatal.

What is so very interesting about how Sir Walter Scott wrote this novel, is the strength of purpose that he gave to the women who were the heroines of the story. If anything, Rebecca was a lot stronger than the Lady Rowena, although both repulsed the advances made to them. Rebecca’s strength came from the way that she dealt with her father, as well as the independence of her decisions, such as giving back to Gurth the money he paid for the horse and armour used by Ivanhoe, plus the way that she rescued Ivanhoe after the joust (he had been critically wounded).  These women showed strength of character!!

One thing is certain, there is nothing new under the sun. The plotting to gain power is the same as always. The constant fighting and desire to gain power has not changed at all. Human nature itself does not alter all that much either.

What we have to thank with regard to this period is of course the Magna Carta. The nobels responsible for the document were probably the most far seeing of people in that they wanted justice rather than injustice to reign in the kingdom known as England. The Magna Carta is the reason that we have a justice system – the Parliament came in a slightly later period, and eventually the power of the king was eroded.