I have, at the best of times, a jaundiced view of boof-headed footballers, egotistical tennis players and other assorted strokers who get paid to hop-skip and jump for entertainment. I consider such in the same context as I would any other public performer. I might or I might not pay to see them perform their tricks: period. What I do not do is to consider them to be great intellectual, literary or moral luminaries. Moreover, I most certainly do not consider them as role models.
To this end, I am increasingly tired at being hectored at by sports associations and their performing seals by blatant on-field agitprop [political propaganda] acts of patronising virtue signalling. The only signal these send to me is that the poor dumb swine are being fed something decidedly mind-numbing in their collective swill.
I was therefore delighted to receive by e.mail the other morning an open letter to the National Football League in America purportedly sent by one Therese M LeMay. To date I have been unsuccessful in my searches to authenticate it. Not that it particularly matters because it is the content and the principles contained in the letter that are important. These principles are equally important to Australians and Britons – indeed, to all peoples who inject unrealistic expectations of their sports ‘stars’.
We would do well to remember that most of our sportsmen and women have been sucking on the teat of public largesse most of their lives and most do very well indeed out of their careers.
Having said thus, competence on field or track does not qualify them as credible social commentators. Do not let them presume to lecture us on matters of politics or moral rectitude. The vast majority are unqualified, untrained and just too damn stupid to do so.
As for ‘Taking the Knee’ – what utter and complete bollocks! It’s up those that pay to watch this nonsense to speak up and say so.
On that note I append the ‘Open Letter’:
Open Letter to NFL Players. The Boycott is coming
You graduated high school in 2011. Your teenage years were a struggle.
You grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Your mother was the leader of the family and worked tirelessly to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate.
Academics were a struggle for you and your grades were mediocre at best. The only thing that made you stand out is you weighed 225 lbs and could run 40 yards in 4.2 seconds while carrying a football. Your best friend was just like you, except he didn’t play football. Instead of going to football practice after school, he went to work at McDonalds for minimum wage.
You were recruited by all the big colleges and spent every weekend of your senior year making visits to universities where coaches and boosters tried to convince you their school was best. They laid out the red carpet for you. Your best friend worked double shifts at Mickey Ds. College was not an option for him.
On the day you signed with Big State University, your best friend signed paperwork with his Army recruiter. You went to summer workouts.
He went to basic training.
You spent the next four years living in the athletic dorm, eating at the training table. You spent your Saturdays on the football field, cheered on by adoring fans. Tutors attended to your every academic need.
You attended class when you felt like it. Sure, you worked hard. You lifted weights, ran sprints, studied plays, and soon became one of the top football players in the country.
Your best friend was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division. While you were in college, he deployed to Iraq once and Afghanistan twice. He became a Sergeant and led a squad of 19 year-old soldiers who grew up just like he did. He shed his blood in Afghanistan and watched young American's give their lives, limbs, and innocence for the US.
You went to the NFL combine and scored off the charts. You hired an agent and waited for draft day. You were drafted in the first round and your agent immediately went to work, ensuring that you received the most money possible. You signed for $16 million although you had never played a single down of professional football.
Your best friend re-enlisted in the Army for four more years. As a combat tested sergeant, he will be paid $32,000 per year.
You will drive a Ferrari on the streets of South Beach. He will ride in the back of a Blackhawk helicopter with 10 other combat loaded soldiers.
You will sleep at the Ritz. He will dig a hole in the ground and try to sleep. You will “make it rain” in the club. He will pray for rain as the temperature reaches 120 degrees.
On Sunday, you will run into a stadium as tens of thousands of fans cheer and yell your name.
For your best friend, there is little difference between Sunday and any other day of the week. There are no adoring fans. There are only people trying to kill him and his soldiers. Every now and then, he and his soldiers leave the front lines and “go to the rear” to rest. He might be lucky enough to catch an NFL game on TV.
When the National Anthem plays and you take a knee, he will jump to his feet and salute the television. While you protest the unfairness of life in the United States, he will give thanks to God that he has the honor of defending his great country.
To the players of the NFL: We are the people who buy your tickets, watch you on TV, and wear your jerseys. We anxiously wait for Sundays so we can cheer for you and marvel at your athleticism. Although we love to watch you play, we care little about your opinions until you offend us.
You have the absolute right to express yourselves, but we have the absolute right to boycott you.
We have tolerated your drug use and DUIs, your domestic violence, and your vulgar displays of wealth. We should be ashamed for putting our admiration of your physical skills before what is morally right.
But now you have gone too far. You have insulted our flag, our country, our soldiers, our police officers, and our veterans. You are living the American dream, yet you disparage our great country. I encourage all like minded Americans to boycott the NFL.
National boycott of the NFL for Sunday November 11, 2020 “Veterans Day“ Weekend. Boycott all football telecast, all fans, all ticket holders, stay away from attending any games, let them play to empty stadiums.
Pass this post along to all your friends and family. Honor our military, some of whom come home with the American Flag draped over their coffin.
Therese M LeMay
Suppressing Faith and Free Speech: A Lesson from Scotland
Millenarianism: [Latin: ‘mīllēnārius’ - containing a thousand.] Originally, the doctrine of or belief in a future (and typically imminent) thousand-year age of blessedness, beginning with or culminating in the Second Coming of Christ. In socio-political terms used to denote the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society of which they are in the vanguard. Also Utopianism.
The problem with millenarians of any shade is that they are, necessarily, possessed with the ‘Truth’: they have seen the vision; they have spoken with the Great Panjandrum and they know; they have the answers and, if we would only do as they tell us, we will all be saved from damnation.
Such possessed souls, dare I call them zealots, are always a potential danger to society. They are impossible to reason with – because they alone are possessed of the Truth – and any questioning of their credentials is beyond the shadow of reasonableness. How can you doubt them? ‘Believe me’ is their watchword.
Should enough of these souls gather together to press the matter the rest of us are in for a hard-time.
Thus, we face a societal crisis of culture and identity largely brought about by contemporary social engineering driven by sufficient numbers of socio-political millenarians who are totally possessed with the truth of their societal ideal. Should we disagree with them - well one such previous group of gentle souls, some eighty years ago, consigned such doubters to gas chambers; another group of splendid idealists either shot or despatched to Siberia their own Doubting Toms, whilst another Asiatic Great Leader simply shot any perverse souls who doubted his vision. More modern history remains replete with examples of the exercise of power by those so fortunately are possessed of the Truth.
In our own various Western societies those fortunate few so blessed know how to put the screws on us, rather dimmer souls, who need leading into the nourishing and nurturing uplands of their salvation. They brand us as bigots, far-rightists, racists, privileged, sexists, carnivores, trouser-wearers, misogynists, males, possessors of false consciousness and, the most damning of all epithets – Christians.
To this end, my attention was drawn to a news headline this week to which I reacted with weary despair: Now loving Jesus IN YOUR OWN HOME could be a 'hate crime'. 
I will spare you the details of my research into the origins of this story but I finally ascertained, from the Scottish Parliament website:
Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill
The Bill is a response to the recommendations made in Lord Bracadale’s
independent review of hate crime laws.
The Bill has been created to make sure that the groups covered by the Bill are protected from hate crimes. It also makes sure that the laws that provide that protection are fit for the 21st century.
Crimes motivated by prejudice will be treated more seriously and will not be tolerated by society. The Bill has been created to make this clear to victims, those who commit hate crimes, and the wider society.
This is of course all most innocuous sounding and surely people of good faith could find no fault with its intent. As ever the devil is in the detail.
The vagueness of the Bill should be subject to intense question lest it criminalize something people do, albeit unwittingly, in their homes.
The Christian Institute [UK] warns that the Bill could restrict Christians' freedom to proclaim Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation or to call people to repent of sin, "even in church" because it could offend irreligious or anti-religious people.
"Conduct need not be threatening or even intended to stir up hatred for an offense to be committed. Instead, the bill captures any abusive behaviour deemed likely to stir up hatred. An offense could even be unwittingly committed in the privacy of your own home," the Christian Institute said.
"And there is not nearly enough protection for free speech," it continued. Indeed, the proposal could be used as a weapon against people of faith.
"Many who oppose biblical truth claim that disagreeing with them amounts to hatred. The proposed 'stirring up hatred' offenses would give those hostile to Christianity a new tool to try to close down debate and silence Christians."
The government's Justice Committee recently accepted comments on the idea of expanding the existing law, which covers race. Lawmakers have proposed adding other "protected" characteristics, such as sexual orientation and transgender identity.
"While Christians would never support genuinely threatening or abusive behaviour, it is difficult to approve of this bill because of some of the things it includes – not least the new 'stirring up hatred’ offenses," the report said.
The bill also lacks key safeguards that appeared in similar legislation in England and Wales.
"Such laws, especially in today’s climate, would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech. Think of how it could impact student evangelism, a church’s outreach work or Christians seeking to debate moral and ethical issues," the Institute said.
Especially in the bull's-eye would be churches, it said.
"We know the gospel will be offensive to many. It tells people they are sinful, that their conduct separates them from God, and that there is no way to heaven except through Jesus. And what’s more, Christians can’t shy away from saying that. Romans 1:16 says 'I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes,'" the report said.
"This means if Christians stick to their convictions, standing by the gospel and continuing to explain to people what the Bible says about matters such as sexuality and diversity of religions, then they will inevitably offend. Unfortunately, in a culture where people seem increasingly unable to shrug off that with which they disagree, it is only a matter of time before the police are dragged into the matter."
The new plan does not exclude even church services from the ire of antagonists.
"A Sunday morning sermon where Christ is preached as the only saviour and all religions are said to be false, or where homosexual behaviour is said to be sinful, could see the preacher prosecuted for stirring up hatred," the Institute warned.
She observed that Scotland’s Catholic bishops have raised concerns that possessing the Bible could become an offence under proposed new hate crime legislation.
Indeed, the Catholic Church has become the latest organisation to raise its concerns about the controversial Bill
The Church made a submission to the parliamentary Justice Committee, who are scrutinising the reforms. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland said: “Any new law must be carefully weighed against fundamental freedoms, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” With section five of the legislation creating an offence of possessing inflammatory material, they fear the “low threshold” in the proposed new laws “could render material such as the Bible ... as being inflammatory under the new provision”.
The new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill will, if passed, also create an offence of “stirring up hatred” against a protected group, expanding on existing laws protecting racial groups.
The bishops warned “how hatred is defined is not clear which leaves it open to wide interpretation”, adding this “could lead to vexatious claims having to be dealt with by police”. In their submission they also stressed “criminalising conduct is a serious step that should not be taken lightly”. They argued rights to freedom of expression “must be robust enough to protect the freedom to disagree”.
The bishops highlighted their belief, published in response to the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms of gender recognition, that a person’s sex and gender are “not fluid and changeable”. Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic parliamentary office, said: “Whilst acknowledging that stirring up of hatred is morally wrong and supporting moves to discourage and condemn such behaviour, the bishops have expressed concerns about the lack of clarity around definitions.” Its submission comes after The Law Society of Scotland said it had “significant reservations regarding a number of the Bill’s provisions and the lack of clarity”.
It is significant to note that opposition to the Bill has been expressed by other than Christian organisations. The Scottish Police Federation has also claimed the Bill “appears to paralyse freedom of speech in Scotland”.
The Federation said the Bill could mean officers "determining free speech".
Quite obviously the policing of what Scots "think or feel" and criminalising private conversation has left the Federation most uneasy.
Amanda Millar, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "We have significant reservations regarding a number of the Bill's provisions and the lack of clarity, which could in effect lead to restrictions in freedom of expression, one of the foundations of a democratic society.”
This egregious Bill was introduced into parliament by the Scottish National Party’s Justice Minister, Humza Haroon Yousaf SMP, on 23 April 2020. It is currently at stage one of three before it is enacted as law.
How such a rebellious, irascible and freedom loving peoples as the Scots actually countenanced the idea, let alone the reality, of such Draconian legislation beggars belief. Moreover, it says much about the Scottish National Party that sought fit to introduce it – Scottish nationalism in chains to millenarian and authoritarian Diktat. Good one Nicola Sturgeon.
In the early hours of Tuesday, 6 June 1944, the Allied invasion of Europe commenced. Operation Overlord, the landings at Normandy, was the immediate prelude to the defeat of the Axis forces in Europe and the end of World War II. Codenamed Operation Neptune and often referred to as D-Day, it was the largest seaborne invasion in history.
Fast forward 76 years to the day and in what state do we find the Western civilisation – a civilisation that so many brave men and women were prepared to defend?
A recitation of the manifold and obvious failings of our society would be both lengthy and tedious. If readers cannot discern these themselves they should perhaps stick to reading their Hello magazine or the TV Times.
On 6 June 2020 some 27 countries around the world aped the United States of America in expressions of social dysfunction. I am not going to enter into the ethics of this question – again to do so would be tedious. But I am going to detail my views in the specific Australian context on the sheer and complete nonsense the demonstrations have made of the legal and ethical structure of our society.
The mimetic Australian aboriginal protest industry, unable to deliver unto itself its own protest character, quite cheerfully leached onto another nation’s grievances weaving their own therein. Joining these trans-state protests with alacrity were of course the usual suspects with their own agendas. But that again is not the purpose of this essay.
The purpose is to question why, in the context of the strict lockdown protocols to which our society has been subject, were the demonstrations held? What about social responsibility in times of a pandemic? Who authorised the various and deliberate flouting of the law? Why did they thus authorise? What does it tell the remainder of the community?
In an endeavour to answer these matters I draw your attention to the following extracts and quotations:
On 11 May 2020 a number of Melbourne protesters and conspiracy theorists opposed to the coronavirus lockdown have been accused of putting at risk Australia’s gradual easing of restrictions.
Ten people were arrested as protests outside Victoria’s Parliament House in Melbourne turned ugly on Sunday afternoon. People held signs demanding “freedom” and some also called for Bill Gates to be arrested, blamed the virus spread on 5G and questioned whether it was all part of some kind of cover-up. A number of anti-vaxxers were also participating in the protest.
When asked about the protests on Monday, Dr Tony Bartone, president of the Australian Medical Association, told The Today Show those involved were putting the community at risk.
“It's incredibly disappointing, really bizarre, in fact,” Dr Bartone told the program.
“What they're putting at risk is the progressive unyielding of those restrictions.”
Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday mapped out the national cabinet's planned three-step easing of restrictions and Dr Bartone said if one person in the protest group tested positive to COVID-19 the community would take “a backward step”.
“If we have to isolate again and [reintroduce] those measures of social distancing right from the beginning it's actually going to be even harder and much more prolonged the second time round,” Dr Bartone said.
[26 May 2020] AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, said today that the National Rugby League (NRL) plan to have crowds of fans back watching live NRL Premiership matches at suburban grounds by July is a huge risk to public health and should be abandoned.
“Put bluntly, this absurd and dangerous idea belongs in the sin bin,” Dr Bartone said.
“The NRL should be satisfied that it has its competition back in action, but it is unfair and unwise to put the health of the game’s fans at risk. They must first monitor the health and safety of the players and officials who will be involved in the thick of the on-field action.
“Australians have done exceptionally well in flattening the COVID-19 curve, and we are not too far away from relaxing more restrictions.
“Now is not the time for sporting codes to be considering having crowds at games. They must wait until the medical experts advise that it is absolutely safe to do so – and that will not be as early as July.
“The AFL and other sporting codes are adopting the right approach, which is to wait for the expert medical advice before allowing crowds back to watch games.
“We have to be consistent in our public health messaging.
“Decisions on the safety of holding mass gatherings should be made by medical experts in consultation with the National Cabinet, not by rugby league administrators.
“Of course, we all want to see sport return with fans in the stands barracking for their teams. We also want to see theatre, dance, live music, cinemas, and other entertainments open to the public.
“But the public health must come first. Getting beyond the COVID-19 pandemic is bigger than rugby league - it is about the safety of all Australians.”
[6 June 2020]At the last moment the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court decision and declared that the march was a lawful assembly.
[6 June2020] "Mass gatherings where people are close together are high-risk for spreading COVID-19," said Pat Turner, CEO of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in particular are at greater risk of COVID-19, especially those aged 50 years and over, and those who have a weakened immune system.
"The specific advice of all health authorities is that while COVID-19 remains in Australia that everyone should take precautions including the social distancing and hygiene practices," she said.
Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy said the advice from medical professionals remained that large gatherings posed an unacceptable risk for the spread of COVID-19.
"A mass gathering, even if people try to make it safe by trying to practise distancing and hand hygiene, is inherently dangerous," Professor Murphy said.
"It would be very foolish to sacrifice … many of those gains by uncontrolled large gatherings."
Despite the foregoing argument and professional advice, demonstrations occurred across every state in Australia with the explicit sanction of the authorities. In the light of medical opinion there is only one question to ask - Why?
I would wager my family fortune that if I gathered all my mates together to bring their teddy bears for a few beers in the park I’d be in the slammer quicker than Christopher Robin could say ‘Gosh’! Mind you, I suppose the boys in blue might well be justified in being concerned about a bunch of elderly men playing with teddy bears in a public space?
The point made however. Two laws, double-standards, hypocrisy, utter nonsense, administrative and political cowardice – call it as you will. Whatever one considers it to be, one cannot deny that it makes a complete mockery of the law, a mockery of the restrictions we have all been subject to over the past months and, unless we are all brain-dead stupid, it should make us extremely wary of ever trusting the integrity or credibility of our various governments again.
As many of my readers know, I am writing a treatise on the history, decline and future of Christendom. In this treatise I describe that failed political instrument we were once proud to call liberal democracy. My detail foretelling the future of that particular beast is short.
Here’s a headline the Liberal Left ‘WOKE’ community might appreciate - that is If they have time to spare from looting and tearing down their material cultural heritage:
81 killed in bloody Boko Haram attack in Nigerian village
By Bukola Adebayo and Isaac Abrak, CNN
Updated 2044 GMT (0444 HKT) June 10, 2020
The accompanying story is pretty horrific too:
Lagos, Nigeria (CNN)At least 81 people were killed in an attack on a village by suspected Boko Haram militants in northeast Nigeria, the Borno state government said in a statement released to CNN Wednesday.
Residents said the men attacked the village in armored tanks and trucks filled with guns, according to the government's statement.
Seven people, including the village head, children and women, were abducted from the Faduma Kolomdi community, described as a nomadic town in northern Borno.
Residents reported that the men gathered the villagers on Tuesday morning and started shooting in the incident which lasted several hours.
One of the villagers who survived the onslaught told the authorities that the attackers came under the cover of being Islamic teachers.
"They gathered us and said they wanted to deliver religious sermon to us. They asked us to submit whatever arm we had. Some villagers gave up their ... guns, bow, and arrows.
"Suddenly, they started shooting at will. Even children and women were not spared, Many were shot at close range," the man, who was not named, said in the statement.
"We have buried 49 corpses here while another 32 corpses were taken away by families from the villages around us.
"The insurgents abducted seven persons, including our village head. They went away with 400 cattle," the man added.
Well that's the real world people. Ain’t life grand!
…and the answer is… ‘Yes!’ [Originally Posted 15 Dec. 2019]
In the rain, the snow and in the sleet; and in the dark over-hung mid-December gloom, the peoples of Britain finally had their say – and they roared unequivocally, “Yes!”
But Yes – to what?
In the case of England and Wales the people gave themselves a massive vote of confidence. They emphatically rid themselves of the procrastinating, bedwetting nappy-masters who for too long had had the gall to call themselves their political representatives: moreover, they showed that they wanted sound and decisive leadership and, most significantly, they demonstrated that they were unafraid to take the next step of destiny in their proud history.
The peoples of Scotland also roared Yes – for or to what, no one, least of all themselves, is quite sure. Perhaps for long-held grievances against all things English; or some Quixotic notion of Rob Roy and Braveheart, hand-in-hand, skipping merrily with swirling kilts and skirling pipes across the misty heather; or perhaps, most likely, they just demonstrated a marked and continued disinclination to wean themselves off the comfortable teat across the Channel? That they would be happy to exchange democratic government from Westminster with tyranny from Brussels is logic defying. But then logic and an excess of nationalism never made good bedfellows. Whatever their reasons at least they roared in parochial unison.
Which is more than did the odd-bods across the Irish Sea. The party that refuses to sit in Westminster garnered more seats than the party that does. How does that work exactly? Is that a Yes? Yes I mean No.
But overall the result is a triumph of reason, a triumph for representative democracy and a tremendous slap-down for the political elites that tried so hard to deny ordinary Britons their birthright – the right to say how they are governed. It is to be hoped that this result will go a long way towards helping dispel the curse of class distinctions that has plagued British society far too long.
Thankfully, the public names of yesteryear – was it only last week – who were rabbiting on about second referendums, about revoking Brexit, re-nationalisation blah-blah are now confined to the trash cans, along with their billboards, posters, their supreme arrogance and their puerile dreams. The prize for the most perceptive journalism must surely go to Russia Today who observed that those who were promising a second referendum failed to realise that this election was the referendum!
The peoples of England and Wales will stand together and face a new future – a new uncertainty and a host of new challenges. They were a formidable team in the past – on Thursday 12 December 2019 they gave notice to the world that they are back!