Is there still a little bit of life left in the Church of England? Well, maybe:
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

“The Church of England has stated that sex belongs only within heterosexual marriage, and that sex in gay or straight civil partnerships “falls short of God’s purpose for human beings”. Bishops have issued pastoral guidance in response to the recent introduction to mixed-sex civil partnerships, which says: “For Christians, marriage – that is, the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.” The church “seeks to uphold that standard” in its approach to civil partnerships, and “to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships” within such partnerships. It adds: “Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purpose for human beings.” The affirmation of traditional teaching at a time when the church is undergoing a major review of sexuality and marriage will delight conservatives. The Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005, allowing same-sex couples to acquire a legal status and rights in relation to property, inheritance and tax entitlement. In 2013, same-sex marriage was legalised. The C of E does not permit same-sex marriage. It allows clergy to be in same-sex civil partnerships as long as they are sexually abstinent. After the supreme court ruled in 2018 that mixed-sex couples should also have the right to a civil partnership, the law was amended. The first mixed-sex civil partnerships were registered last month. The Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the C of E’s director of mission and public affairs, said: “Civil partnership is not the same as marriage, which is founded on the taking of solemn public vows and is recognised in the church’s teaching as the only proper context for sexual relationships. “So, as with same-sex civil partnerships, there is no formal service or blessing but clergy will, as always, be encouraged to respond pastorally to couples wishing to formalise their relationship in this way.”

     There is apparently a voluntary human extinction movement, a fringe Greenie/Left one. The aim is not just to eliminate whites, as many Greenies and Commos want, but all humans, so full marks for anti-discrimination, if nothing else! Ok, dream on. Still, the movement is part of natural selection, since the very people who will not have children will spare the world from their socialist genes, improving the gene pool. So, with things like this, I say, stop arguing, just bring it on! Here is Les knight on the movement for the extinction of the human rsace:
  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/10/i-campaign-for-the-extinction-of-the-human-race-les-knight

“In 1996, when we got a website, things took off. People from all over the world emailed me, saying they had thought they were alone. I got hate mail, too. “You first,” is a common taunt. OK, I got snipped; you next. My favourite encounters are with people who thoroughly question the concept: I’ll take thoughtful disagreement over mindless agreement any day. I don’t know how many share my beliefs, but I speak to hundreds of advocates each year. We have active volunteers across the world, from India to Mexico. In my own relationships, I’ve always explained that pregnancy is impossible. Marriage never made sense to me anyway: I would have missed getting to know many wonderful women had I stuck with one. Today, Extinction Rebellion and the climate strike movement haven’t quite embraced the population’s contribution to the crisis. Other high-profile population awareness organisations are working hard to be acceptable, so suggest zero or one offspring, and still say stop at two. Two is too many: computer models suggest even one-child families would result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Although the basic concept of the movement is the same, my motivations have evolved. I was a deep ecologist at first, caring more about our impact on the ecosphere than human needs. I’ve become more concerned about any new humans being brought into existence. Procreation today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship. It’s true that society would be greatly diminished without children, but it isn’t right to create them just because we like having them around. People worry that we won’t have enough workers to support pensioners, but economic systems are artificial and can be adjusted. We don’t need to breed more wage slaves to prop up an obsolete system. If we go extinct, other species will have a chance to recover. I’ll never see the day when there are no humans on the planet, but I can imagine what a magnificent world it would be – provided we go soon enough.

     We would like to think that the big evil media monsters can be defeated. The big question is: how? Some worthy ideas have been given by Ron Unz, who uses Saul Alinsky ideas from the Left, against the Left, in a kind of epistemological judo:
  https://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/alternative-media-can-defeat-mainstream-media-heres-game-plan/ri23703

“Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere
The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere else as well. The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.

     Keeping readers up-to -date on LGBT + news that they may not be getting on Sunday at their quiet suburban church, but this is all coming, with Sweden leading the charge:
  https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/02/church-of-sweden-lgbt-inclusive-altarpiece-homophobes-triggered-st-pauls-malmo-elisabeth-ohlson-wallin/

“The Church of Sweden has unveiled the country’s first-ever LGBT+ altarpiece, the artwork behind an altar, and homophobes are very upset about it. The painting, titled ‘Paradise’, shows same-sex couples wearing fig leaves in the Garden of Eden and was created by the lesbian artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin. St Paul’s church in Malmö unveiled the altarpiece on the first day of advent (December 1) to create “greater inclusion and identification in the Church”. St Paul’s said in a statement: “It is with pride and joy that we receive Paradise in St Paul’s Church. We need images that open up for greater inclusion and identification in the church. “We are grateful to Elisabeth’s artistry, which enables us to build a credible church that shows that we all, regardless of who we love and identify as, are accommodated in Paradise.” One of the pastors at the church wrote on Twitter: “On Sunday, history is written. Sweden’s only LGBT altarpiece (Elisabeth Ohlsson Wallin) is received by St Paul’s church in Malmö… We are so happy and proud!” However, many on social media were upset about the celebratory and inclusive piece of art. One person wrote: “Not impressed. This is not about Christian values, but only political activism. Shameful!” Another added: “This is an anti-Christian heresy that abhors the altar and the Eucharist. Those responsible should be excommunicated.”

     Here is something I did not know about Adam Smith, the founder of free market economics, beloved by conservatives: he was financed by a globalist of the time:
  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/geopolitics-epistemological-warfare-babylon-neocon

“Smith at Her Majesty’s Service
Do Smith’s modern followers sincerely believe in the “self-regulating forces of the free market”? Sure they do. Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system? Whether he did or not, according to recent research conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose his seminal book Wealth of Nations (published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his 1729 Necessity of Paper Currency and Colonial Script. Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new “Law” of “absolute advantage” demanded that everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don’t ask how that happened because it wasn’t through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she could do that… which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. “Free Trade” demanded it so.”

     I have been waiting for the globalists, through the accursed UN, to start going on about climate refugees, and how the West is responsible for placing entire populations, along with everything else the West is subjected to. They will not stop as long as the West still stands; this is the endgame.
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/20/climate-refugees-cant-be-returned-home-says-landmark-un-human-rights-ruling

“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. The judgment – which is the first of its kind – represents a legal “tipping point” and a moment that “opens the doorway” to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say. Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade. The judgment relates to the case of Ioane Teitiota, a man from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, which is considered one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013, claiming his and his family’s lives were at risk. The committee heard evidence of overcrowding on the island of South Tarawa, where Teitiota lived, saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable, which had led to violence and social tensions.”

     Who says that immigration was not about changing the racial profile and demographics? Just consider the case of Germany, where now, almost half of the children are offspring of migrants. Take away jobs, with the rise of IT, and let’s see if the Coudenhove-Kalergi replacement plan produces the rainbow utopia that the elites think has been produced in South Africa.
  https://russia-insider.com/en/achtung-nearly-50-germanys-newborns-are-not-german-excellent-educational-video/ri28161
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwyevHwUlKQ&feature=emb_title

     Time for the West to start opening its eyes as it crosses the busy freeway.

     Considerable publicity is being given to an article by Byron Lamont and Tianhua He titled “Why prescribed burns don’t stop wildfires” (published in New Matilda, and also WAToday 22 January 2020).
  https://newmatilda.com/2020/01/17/hazard-reduction-burns-dont-stop-wildfires-says-one-of-the-nations-most-eminent-ecologists/

Lamont and He are academics from Curtin University in WA, the former a botanist and the latter a molecular biologist. They argue against the use of fuel reduction burning in bushfire management because it does not "stop bushfires". The article should be filed among works of fiction.

     Prince Charles has in effect, posed the question, ‘Do we continue business as usual while our livelihood deteriorates?’ It behoves all to think seriously about the question. In parable terms it means; was the Sabbath made for Man or Man made for the Sabbath? One link not addressed is that of debt and the massive impact it has on all nations.  For instance Australia is on a treadmill to develop, produce, populate through immigration and trade with other countries, in large parts to keep the economy functioning and to service the debt. It is obvious that if the debt question of finance is not rectified, an artificial drive to use natural resources to keep the economy in overdrive to service the debt will continue. This would be unnecessary if the financial system functioned as intended; that is, a ticket system to distribute goods and services and facilitate the needs and running of the economy for the benefit of the citizens of the nation. In real terms Australia is a wealthy nation.  The natural wealth, knowledge and labour to feed, clothe and house everyone are in abundance.  It is essential that finance accurately reflect this reality and be balanced with the life-giving forces which sustain us. Technology is replacing much of the physical labour and the money ticket system could facilitate in such change to benefit all. Every nation could be responsible for issuing their own money debt-free for its housekeeping which would ease the pressure to compete for artificial markets.  There would be no need for IMF intervention if the citizens of every nation were responsible for their own political, economic and cultural decisions while respecting other nations and trading where genuine needs exist. Money is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  This is the key to the question posed and is subject to the answer.
  Jennifer Grundy
  January 2020

To The Age        Australians in general respect Aboriginal culture and see it as an important part of our national heritage, providing a distinctive element unique to our history. However, this does not mean that we should transform the nature of our wonderful Constitution to specially privilege one small minority of present-day Australians - those claiming Aboriginal ancestry ("Indigenous history vital to Australia Day", 25/1). The Constitution originated as an agreement between the then colonies to form a single nation. It is not appropriate to turn it into a political manifesto. Divisive proposals that only make sense if there is a long-term goal of political separatism should be shunned.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian         We have a rare slip from Geoffrey Blainey ("An epic endeavour, a vexed debate", 25-26/1): Aboriginal peoples were not "the first discoverers of Australia" but only of this continent - and there may have been others even before them. There is also a furphy from Angela Shanahan ("No welcome mat laid out for early European arrivals", 25-26/1): immigrants from non-British nations have certainly contributed to our national character, but not (despite her claim) as much as "the English-speaking majority." Australia remains primarily a British cultural creation, just over a hundred years old (if we date its origin as Federation) or twice that (if we go back to 1788). We enjoy a free way of life here (though not, alas, as totally free as it should be) thanks, essentially, to British endeavour. Any attempts to downplay the British contribution should be strongly opposed, since they also involve downplaying the importance of political freedom and open debate in public forums.
  Nigel Jackson, Belgrave

     It has got this bad; while children are groomed and raped by the thousands, and violence is inflicted upon people with knives and grenades, Renaud Camus, the French intellectual founder of the Great Replacement theory has been given a two-month suspended sentence merely for saying that mass immigration is an “invasion.” Surely, harder things than that could be said:
  https://vdare.com/posts/france-sentences-renaud-camus-to-jail-for-calling-mass-immigration-an-invasion-unless-he-pays-anti-european-groups

“File this one under "There is no Free World."
Renaud Camus, the French intellectual who coined the term The Great Replacement for the ongoing invasion of the Continent, is facing jail unless he pays money to anti-European organizations. French intellectual Renaud Camus has been given a 2 month suspended prison sentence for saying that mass immigration into Europe represents an “invasion.” Camus will only avoid jail by paying 1800 euros to two “anti-racist” organizations, SOS Racisme and the LICRA (International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism). The writer, who is the author of Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement), was charged with “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion.” The conviction stems from a November 2017 speech in Colombey-les-deux Eglises to the National Council of European Resistance in which Camus declared, “Immigration has become an invasion.” “The irreversible colonization is demographic colonization, by the replacement of the population,” said the author, adding, “The ethnic substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if the story continues, it will not be that of France.” [French intellectual sentenced to 2 months in Prison For Calling Mass Immigration an "Invasion," by Paul Joseph Watson, Summit News, January 21, 2020] Camus is not the first to be imprisoned nor the last for "crimes" of speech and writing. The regime has repeatedly persecuted iconic French actress, Brigitte Bardot for defending animal rights, which she feels the Islamic influx endangers.”

     We have heard the news of a universal cancer cure before, so I tsake it all now with a pinch of salt:
  https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51182451

“A newly-discovered part of our immune system could be harnessed to treat all cancers, say scientists. The Cardiff University team discovered a method of killing prostate, breast, lung and other cancers in lab tests. The findings, published in Nature Immunology, have not been tested in patients, but the researchers say they have "enormous potential". Experts said that although the work was still at an early stage, it was very exciting. What have they found? Our immune system is our body's natural defence against infection, but it also attacks cancerous cells. The scientists were looking for "unconventional" and previously undiscovered ways the immune system naturally attacks tumours. What they found was a T-cell inside people's blood. This is an immune cell that can scan the body to assess whether there is a threat that needs to be eliminated. The difference is this one could attack a wide range of cancers. "There's a chance here to treat every patient," researcher Prof Andrew Sewell told the BBC. He added: "Previously nobody believed this could be possible. "It raises the prospect of a 'one-size-fits-all' cancer treatment, a single type of T-cell that could be capable of destroying many different types of cancers across the population." How does it work? T-cells have "receptors" on their surface that allow them to "see" at a chemical level. The Cardiff team discovered a T-cell and its receptor that could find and kill a wide range of cancerous cells in the lab including lung, skin, blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney and cervical cancer cells. Crucially, it left normal tissues untouched. -cells attack cancer cells

     If anyone thinks that we gave Meg Markle a hard time in critical posts this week, simply consider that her sister and dad are her harshest critics:
  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10775155/samantha-markle-meghan-harry-never-find-happiness/

“MY sister has ripped through the Royal Family like a tornado. With this historic institution close to collapse, we have to ask whether peace can really be found. Her Majesty’s words show great diplomacy but Meghan’s behaviour has so far not been diplomatic. A diplomat wouldn’t fall out with her own family. Her friends leaked negative comments about the “toxic” Royal Family. She also allowed damage to be done against our family via friends and PR advisers. She watched the media taunt and torture my dad, never springing to his defence like a true humanitarian would. Thomas was an incredible dad. He paid every penny of her education and cared greatly for her. He is now frail, with a heart condition. He doesn’t have a PR team to spin him a good story. The Queen, at 93, shouldn’t have had to face the stress of seeing her family torn apart. Meghan hasn’t stepped forward to minimise the damage. She knows how Harry leaving has affected them, but she hasn’t spoken up in their defence. Yet in her statement, the Queen says she is “particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”. Her Majesty is building bridges there. It would be good if Meghan could do the same. She could have expressed her thanks for the kindness of the Queen and Prince Charles. She could have expressed gratitude to her own father or her first husband, Trevor, who gave her career opportunities. My sister has become a totally different person, choosing wealth and fortune over family.”

     The first case of the coronavirus outside of China has been reported:
  https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/01/21/cdc-confirms-first-us-case-of-china-coronavirus/

“An individual traveling from China has been diagnosed in Seattle with the coronavirus, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spokesman confirmed on Tuesday. The development comes after Chinese health officials announced that the virus has killed at least 6 people and sickened over 300. Four cases were confirmed in South Korea, Japan, and Thailand. Additionally, a Taiwanese national who recently visited Wuhan, tested positive for the virus. China’s Health Commission announced 291 confirmed cases of the virus, with 77 new cases reported on Monday alone. Municipal health commissions of Zhejiang, Tianjin, and Shanghai reported additional cases, pushing the number of infections up to 302. The number of confirmed cases in Hubei province, where Wuhan is located, has risen to 270; Bejing has five, Guangdong province 14, Shanghai six, Zhejiang five and Tianjin two. Wuhan announced new measures Tuesday to contain the outbreak, including the cancellation of upcoming Lunar New Year celebrations. The new measures follow President Xi Jinping ordering increased efforts to stop the spread of the disease Monday, but there are fears efforts to contain the virus impeded by Chinese bureaucracy have come too late. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are expected to travel across the country in the coming days ahead of the Lunar New Year and raise concerns of a potential increase in cases. Presently, the virus appears to be less lethal than the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak, which resulted in 774 deaths. “Based on current information, an animal source seems the most likely primary source of this outbreak with limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts,” said World Health Organization spokesman Tarik Jasarevic. “Based on current data, some new cases seem to experience milder diseases which is within the milder end of the spectrum of symptoms caused by respiratory illnesses,” Jasarevic added.”

     Australian Fire-lighters come in six colours – yellow, black, white, blood red, dark green, and light green. All are relevant to bushfires and forest management. “Yellow” is the Fire-lighter that has been with us forever. It is the yellow flash of lightning which has always ignited the Australian bush. We’re dreaming to think we can lock yellow fire out of parks, forests and heritage areas. But good forest management can reduce the ferocity and destruction of lightning-strike fires. “Black” Fire-lighters came with the first Australians. Without matches or tinder boxes they probably captured the fire genie from a lightning fire. Or they carried it here on clay hearths on the floor of their canoes. They valued this magic tool for warmth, cooking, insect control, vegetation clearing, animal trapping and fighting enemies. Some also learned how to light fires using heat generated by friction, but this was a slow laborious process and it was far easier to preserve and carry fire in a burning fire-stick. To keep these sticks alight or to light a new one as they travelled, nomadic parties on the plains and deserts renewed them periodically by setting fire to a clump of dry vegetation. Then they moved on. They lit fires for many reasons, anywhere at any time. They tried to keep out of the way of fires, and were known to redirect mild grassland fires but never tried to put them out. This continual mosaic of small fires created the magnificent grasslands and open forests that Europeans admired when they first arrived. Aboriginal fire management followed no central plan, but it worked, making most lives and forests safer.

     “White” Fire-lighters were introduced by the next wave of settlers – the British, bringing matches, flints and tinder boxes. They marvelled at the grasslands and open forests they found. Soon the sheep and cattle of the squatters were flourishing on the fresh nutritious pastures of frequently burned land. They soon learned about bushfires as the “Yellow” and “Black” Fire-lighters were still operating. The squatters soon learned two new skills to protect their pastures, flocks, herds, stock-yards, wool sheds and homesteads. Firstly, reduce fire loads and encourage new grass using cool season burning. And secondly, when faced with invading fires, fight fire with fire – back burn from station tracks, freshly burned bush or creeks towards the invading fire. We need to relearn these valuable lessons. “Blood-Red” Fire-lighters are carried by the fire vandals – the arsonists. And the greater the fire danger, and the more headlines it creates, the more active are these pyro-maniacs. “Light-Green” Fire-lighters were developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s for professional foresters to protect forests with prescribed burning. These marvellous tools were banned by political fools, and are hard to procure today.

     Yet another “joy’ of globalism and the rule of money, which reduces everything and everybody to money:
  https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50828386

“Top social media influencers are being propositioned daily by strangers with offers of thousands of pounds in return for sex, the Victoria Derbyshire programme has been told. One said social media had become "a catalogue" for men to select their next conquest. "It's high-end prostitution - it's just scary to think if they've messaged me, they've probably sent it to thousands of pretty girls on Instagram," says Tyne-Lexy Clarson. She says she was only 19 when she was first propositioned, with an offer of £20,000 for dinner and drinks. But after starring in series two of Love Island, an agency emailed, offering her £50,000 for five nights in Dubai. It contained a non-disclosure agreement, stating that the details of what she would be required to do would remain confidential. Tyne-Lexy says she refused the offer, but fears that struggling influencers who do not receive luxury items for free would feel pressure to "keep up appearances" and become vulnerable to these kinds of transactions. "It's a lot of money for some people, it's life-changing amounts of money." Rosie Williams, who starred in series three of Love Island, says she was offered £100,000 a year plus all her clothes and bags, to become a companion to a man in Dubai. She showed us one of the recent messages she had received, from a man purporting to be in Dubai. It says she may be surprised to hear from him but he has an "important transaction" he wishes to share - which she says is a common turn of phrase in these messages. And she says she would never be tempted, despite the large amount of money involved. Rosie says it is not an aspect of fame she anticipated: "You're warned about trolling, you're warned that your life will change dramatically, but you're never warned that you could get bought by men." And she says it is not spoken about in influencer circles: "We either aren't in a position where we need to do it so we don't speak about it, or we've done it and we're too ashamed."

     Even a crusty old cynic like myself never thought that the Vatican even under the present Third World Pope would descend to levels like this, well, not as quickly:
  https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-01-21-pope-francis-hosts-drag-queen-circus-vatican-hall.html

“It was a celebration of all things strange, sexual and satanic at the Roman Catholic religion’s Vatican Hall on January 8. Pope Francis reportedly invited a group known as “Aqua Circus,” Europe’s response to “Cirque du Soleil,” to dance around on stage and pay homage to the reptile “jesus” idol perched up in a display behind him. During this postlude to Rome’s General Audience event, Francis tossed a hula hoop to the “artists” in the performance troupe who were acting out a tale about a mermaid and a man under the sea trying to fight contamination of the ocean. In other words, the purpose of the show was to offer worship to Francis’ god of global warming and climate change. In the below video footage, watch as creepy Francis smirks with satisfaction at the pagan performance happening right in front of him. And keep in mind that Vatican Hall itself is shaped like a giant serpent, both inside and out (pictures of Vatican Hall are available at Now The End Begins)”:

     I am a lover of large fighting and survival knives, just the sort of things which men need in this world to keep their T-levels up. While I thought I knew a fair bit about the Bowie knife, this was mainly American knowledge.     Gustavus von Tempsky, born in East Prussia in 1828, one year after Jim Bowie’s famous Vidalia Sandbar fight, was an adventurer who moved to Australia during the gold rush period, but did not make much money, so he tried his hand in New Zealand. He wound up in the Forest Rangers, a type of special ops designed to fight the Maori uprising in the bush. Firearms in the 1860s were more reliable than in Jim Bowie’s day, but von Tempsky felt that men should be equipped with a Bowie knife, and the fighting techniques he had learnt while in America and Mexico. So, he introduced the Bowie knife to New Zealand. This is what a leading expert on the Bowie, Paul Kirchner, has to say about the  significance of this fine act of cultural exchange:
  http://bowieknifefightsfighters.blogspot.com/2011/04/bowie-knife-fighter-gustavus-von.html

“To equip his troops, Tempsky had about 30 bowie knives made to his specifications by a cutler in Auckland. They were crafted from wagon springs, one of the few sources of steel available to New Zealand blacksmiths in 1863. The blade was about nine inches long, 2½ inches wide near the handle, and ¼-inch thick. Tempsky taught his men to use the knife in close-quarters combat, holding the knife in the left hand to fend off an opponent's attacking blows while using a revolver with the right hand. Here's a brief mention of Tempsky in Britain's Roll of Glory; or the Victoria Cross: Its Heroes and Their Valor:

     Companies will get diverse, or else:
  https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/goldman-says-it-wont-take-companies-public-without-at-least-one-diverse-director-heres-what-it-should-have-said/

“Now Goldman Sachs  has made an announcement of its own that’s very much a part of the times: its CEO, David Solomon, today told CNBC that beginning this year, Goldman will no longer take companies public if they don’t have at least one “diverse” member on its board of directors. “Starting on July 1st in the U.S. and Europe, we’re not going to take a company public unless there’s at least one diverse board candidate, with a focus on women,” Solomon said specifically on the network’s “Squawk Box.” Some will, perhaps rightly, see the announcement as little more than marketing. After all, it’s already widely viewed as unacceptable for a company to go public without at least one female board member and preferably far more “diversity” than that. WeWork, for example, tried to go public last year with an all-male board, only to realize soon after that if it wanted to pursue an initial public offering, it had better mix it up a bit. (Of course, by the time it amended its S-1 to name Harvard professor Frances Frei as its first female board member, its offering was already starting to implode.) Adding one’s first female board member ahead of an IPO is such a cliche at this point that the more interesting question is how close to the filing a related announcement will be made.