You will be next! The power of the terror mongers. When fear dominates reason… evil prevails

A facebook friend put me on to this…

‘You will be next’: Hate preacher who recruited Nairobi mall massacre killers warns of attack on British soil

Satan's Anus

“Asked if terror would be brought to Britain, Makaburi said: ‘Yes. The British will be targeted personally. That means tourists on the streets will be killed. You will all die.”

This won’t be difficult given that England have allowed so many muslims(who subsequently become jihadists) to come and live in their country.

Read more >>>Here<<<< ******* The depth of Evil in this Hate Preacher is unfathomable! He is engaging in terrorism via his very words! Why do you think he is saying this stuff? Out of the goodness of his heart? Its not a warning.... *It is the terror at work!* If the West starts persecuting Muslims out of fear... in response to this sort of Fear mongering... they will be working in the terrorists favour. This Machiavellian devil actually hopes the British people will start to persecute Islamic migrants and Britons as he knows that such oppression will appear to legitimise his hatred, and give birth to the Jihadists he lusts for! I am not saying The West should pander to Islam. I am saying they must uphold Justice and equality.... not be driven by fear.... which is the chief power of the terrorists. Nor am I merely waving my hand at what this Devil preaches. Britian is vulnerable to such terrorism.... All western nations are vulnerable. what I am saying is that an oppressive fear driven reaction to such preaching is not the solution.... but part of the problem. Ie innocent people get oppressed simple because of their race or religion and this oppression generates real.... almost justifiable.... repercussions. It is only by upholding justice, Freedom and equality.... for all.... including Muslims... is the high ground is maintained... the very things which distinguishes Enlightened Civilisation from the Terrorists. That is what is at stake. Nothing less! The West must be brave and Endure! We must come up with more rational and just means of over coming the terrorists threats which dont involve compromises in the Rights and liberties of any portion of our Citizenry. Any simplistic compromise on this results in a victory for terrorism. The solution is far more complex. I urge my Christian brothers and sisters to preach the Gospel of God's grace through Christ! This is ideological struggle. Tim Wikiriwhi Christian Libertarian. Read more about how Terror is used to justify Power grabs >>>here<<< Read about how Hate generates hate >>>Here<<< Read about Terror and the Higher path >>>here<<<

Ayn Rand collected Social Security


Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

It’s not just a low blow. It’s lower than that. It’s a Facebook group.

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

She regarded it as restitution and opposed all forms of welfare statism. Problem?

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

Ayn Rand collected Socialist Scalps.

When it comes to slaggin’ socialists, Ayn Rand is unsurpassed.

Bow down before the Rand!

We are not worthy!

One of these days I’m going to cut you into little pieces


“Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces
    but he will heal us;
he has injured us
    but he will bind up our wounds.
After two days he will revive us;
    on the third day he will restore us,
    that we may live in his presence.
Let us acknowledge the Lord;
    let us press on to acknowledge him.
As surely as the sun rises,
    he will appear;
he will come to us like the winter rains,
    like the spring rains that water the earth.”

“What can I do with you, Ephraim?
    What can I do with you, Judah?
Your love is like the morning mist,
    like the early dew that disappears.
Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,
    I killed you with the words of my mouth—
    then my judgments go forth like the sun.
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (NIV)

A plea for BLTC


My speech to the Libertarianz Party Tenth Birthday Conference in July 2006.

arguably, the greatest harm caused by the War on Drugs has been to stifle research into new and better and safer recreational drugs.

Here‘s a summary as live blogged by Peter Cresswell.

Here are my speech notes. Neolithic Technology …

Fellow libertarians …

Let’s go back in time. Lindsay took us back 10 years. Let’s go back 10,000 years to the beginning of the Neolithic era, also known as the late Stone Age. The Neolithic is when humans quit the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and took up farming.

Technologically, we have come a long way since the start of the late Stone Age, 10,000 years ago.

In terms of materials and manufacturing technology, there was a good reason it was called the Stone Age, although some scholars have suggested renaming the era the Wood Age. Pretty much everything was made out of wood, or stone, or crude pottery. The potters wheel and kiln had yet to be invented. Today we have a huge choice of materials to work with from metals, thru plastics to carbon nanotubes. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

What about weapons technology? Stone Age fighters had maces and axes and other varieties of rocks for bashing people attached to wooden handles. They had the bow and arrow, and the sling. Today, we have handguns, tasers, cruise missiles and anthrax. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

Transport technology. In the Stone Age, it was Shank’s pony all the way. There were no roads in the Stone Age. The oldest so-called road dates from 3806 or 3807 BC. It was in fact a walkway over a peat bog in Somerset, England. Although Neolithic people had domesticated the horse, they hadn’t learn to ride it. They hadn’t invented the wheel. (But they had rollers.) Today we have motor cars, mag-lev trains, space rockets and the Segway. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

Communication technology. Strictly word of mouth. No alphabet, no writing, no printing presses, no telecommunications. No smoke signals, no carrier pigeons. Today we have the World Wide Web.

We have, indeed, come a long way since the dawn of the Neolithic. But there’s one area in which we hardly seem to have progressed at all. That’s in the technology of recreational mood alteration.

At the start of the late Stone Age, a newly discovered drug was rapidly gaining popularity, viz. alcohol. We know this because archeologists have unearthed late Stone Age beer jugs.

Alcohol, like all Stone Age technology, is most charitably characterised as “crude but effective”.

But, I put it to you that alcohol is more crude than effective.

Alcohol produces disinhibition and facilitates social interactions. It eases pain and anxiety and aids relaxation. It is indispensible for the Libertarianz leadership selection process. Best of all, it causes euphoria.

But it has a huge range of unwanted side effects.

A blood alcohol concentration of 0.1 grams of alcohol per deciliter causes slurred speech, and impaired ability to perform complex tasks, such as driving.

Higher doses, such as 0.3 BAC (blood alcohol concentration) cause confusion and impaired ability to perform simple tasks such as walking.

0.4 BAC causes stupor, 0.5 BAC causes coma, and 0.6 BAC causes respiratory failure and death.

Ever wondered why you feel so shitty the day after a good night of hard drinking? Why you feel like you’ve been poisoned? It’s because you have been poisoned. Not by alcohol, but by acetaldehyde which is what alcohol dehydrogenase converts alcohol to in the liver. The dangerous acetaldehyde is quickly converted to harmless acetate by another enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase.

Unfortunately, if we overdose on alcohol, we can overload the body’s enzyme systems, flooding the bloodstream with toxic acetaldehyde and highly dangerous oxidative breakdown products called free radicals… resulting in an increased risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, premature skin wrinkling, cataracts, liver damage, brain damage…

20 years ago, I read this book, Life Extension, by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, in which they describe how to minimise the harmful effects of using alcohol by taking various nutrients and antioxidants.

A passage which jumped out of the page and stuck in my mind ever since is this one,

“An ideal solution to the alcohol problem would be to develop new recreational drugs which provide the desired alcohol high without the damaging side effects. There is, in fact, such a drug. It was invented by Alexander Shulgin, synthesized, and tested in humans (test subjects couldn’t distinguish between the drug and a few martinis).”

Shulgin is famous for having synthesised, and tested (on himself) literally hundreds of novel psychoactive drugs, principally drugs in the tryptamine and phenethylamine families of chemicals. His most famous work is called PIHKAL or Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved.

Shulgin, of course, self-tested his proposed alcohol substitute.

he described a “mild, pleasant intoxication.” It produced “free-flowing feelings” that he likened to “the second martini.” Believing he had indeed found a synthetic alternative to alcohol, Shulgin brought it to parties, holding up a little baggie of white powder he called “a low-calorie martini.” Testing among his research group, however, revealed the full range of warmth and euphoria of the [new] high… it evoked in most people feelings of empathy and self-acceptance …

[Shulgin’s test subjects] lovingly nicknamed the new compound “empathy” and thought of it as “penicillin for the soul.”

What is this drug, and what happened to it? I’m sure you can guess what happened to it. In New Zealand, it was made Class B in 1986.

My speech notes were a bit sketchy in places … that was methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

In the last few years it has been gaining popularity as a “recreational” drug offering a pleasant, alcohol-like, hangover-free “high” with potent prosexual effects (5). Most users find that GHB induces a pleasant state of relaxation and tranquility. GHB induces “remarkable hypotonia” (muscle relaxation) (1). Frequent effects are placidity, sensuality, mild euphoria, and a tendency to verbalize. Anxieties and inhibitions tend to dissolve into a feeling of emotional warmth, well-being, and pleasant drowsiness. The “morning after” effects of GHB lack the unpleasant or debilitating characteristics associated with alcohol and other relaxation-oriented drugs (3).

Over the years, numerous researchers have extensively studied GHB’s effects. It is has come to be used in Europe as a general anesthetic, a treatment for insomnia and narcolepsy (a daytime sleeping disorder), an aid to childbirth (increasing strength of contractions, decreasing pain, and increasing dilation of the cervix), and a treatment for alcoholism and alcohol withdrawal syndrome (5).

GHB has been called “almost an ideal sleep inducing substance” (3). Small doses produce relaxation, tranquility and drowsiness, which make it extremely easy to fall asleep naturally. Higher doses increase the drowsiness effect and decrease the time it takes to fall asleep. A sufficiently large dose of GHB will induce sudden sleep within five to ten minutes (3). The most remarkable facet of GHB-induced sleep is its physiological resemblance to normal sleep…

That was gamma-hydroxybutyrate. I talked it up. Some people like it. I don’t and I don’t recommend it. A somewhat larger than sufficiently large dose of GHB will induce coma within five to ten minutes …

New Zealand has had a National Drug Policy since 1998. The policy sets out the government’s policy and legislative intentions for tobacco, alcohol, illicit and other drugs.

Recently I attended a consultation meeting organised by the MOH, where I put forward a libertarian viewpoint, and put in a written submission for the second National Drug Policy, which is the Government’s 5-year-plan for 2006 to 2011.

New Zealand’s National Drug Policy has an overarching goal:

To prevent and reduce the health, social and economic harms that are linked to tobacco, alcohol, illicit and other drug use.

My view is that, if we want to influence drug policies, we must engage with this fundamental goal, and we can do so in a limited way.

The overarching goal of the Policy, to prevent and reduce the harms that are linked to drug use, is a noble one. However, we must distinguish between three main kinds of drug-related harms

  1. Harms which individuals inflict upon themselves, or inflict upon others with their consent
  2. Harms which individuals inflict upon others without their consent
  3. Harms which governments inflict upon their citizens

Libertarianz says that the government should not seek to save people from themselves, and most certainly should not harm its own citizens. The government should seek to bring to justice those who commit thefts, assaults, rapes and murders, whether such criminal acts are drug-fuelled or not.

It’s by focussing on this third category that I believe we can, as libertarians, make a contribution to National Drug Policy while maintaining our philosophical integrity.

Moreover, the harms inflicted upon citizens by their own governments, in the name of the War on Drugs™, are widespread and severe. These harms are of the same order of magnitude as the drug-related harms which individuals inflict on themselves, and, unlike the harms which individuals inflict on themselves, they are preventable.

You are all probably familiar with the other main harms that the government inflicts on us, in the name of the War on Drugs™.

For example, a criminal conviction is an indisputable harm in itself. Thousands of these are handed down each year merely for smoking a psychoactive herb. Far worse is a sentence of life imprisonment, routinely handed down to some of our most daring entrepreneurs, for nothing more than supplying consumer demand for psychoactive chemicals.

This document identifies “four broad strategy areas for action” as means to achieve “harm minimisation”.

The government’s attempts at supply control and demand reduction do not decrease demand, and do not control supply, but they do alter the availability of specific drugs. With the result that relatively safe drugs are difficult to come by, and relatively harmful drugs (alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine) are easy to come by.

One of the greatest harms of the War on Drugs™ is the way it’s stopped research into Better Living Through Chemistry. All of Alexander Shulgin’s new psychoactive drugs are illegal in New Zealand and most other countries, proscribed by the Analogues Amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Why would you spend your research dollars developing designer drugs which will be criminalised as soon as they go to market?

This stymieing and stifling and stultification of research into new and better recreational drugs, research which would bring us forward from the Stone Age to the 21st century, is one of the greatest but most overlooked harms of the War on Drugs™.

Fast forward to today and we have the Psychoactive Substances Act.

Do we have new and better recreational drugs?

Or is the government inflicting new harms on its citizens?

Arguments from arrogance

The following are arguments from arrogance:

Your beliefs are absurd and should be considered as falsehoods unless they can be proven true.

My beliefs are reasonable and should be accepted as truths unless they can be proven false.

To say the burden of proof is yours is to argue from arrogance.

Government to fund construction of large wooden badger


Remember how Peter Dunne sold us the Psychoactive Substances Act?

Here‘s what he told the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs when he took the world stage in Vienna, Austria six months ago.

While we have placed more than 30 synthetic cannabis-like substances under temporary bans, but we are aware that there are potentially hundreds more that could replace them.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament that will end the game of catch-up once and for all.

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

He said the same thing last year. It’s what he’s said all along, time and again. In his capacity as a Cabinet minister. On behalf of the New Zealand government.

As promised, we are reversing the onus of proof. If they cannot prove that a product is safe, then it is not going anywhere near the marketplace

Like some codswallop with your porkies? Lies. That’s how we got sold the PSA. But what we got was not as advertised. Quite the reverse.

1. Pass safety tests.
2. Approve for sale.

That was Plan A.

This is Plan B.

1. Approve for sale.
2. Build a large wooden badger.

Here‘s what Dunne said back in May, in his final bout of banning.

This is another blow to the industry and one of many we have delivered – but I fully acknowledge it is more of the cat-and-mouse game until we can deliver the killer punch in August when the Psychoactive Substances Bill will become law.

Deliver the killer punch?! He makes the Psychoactive Substances Act sound like the Jonestown Massacre! Could be something in the analogy.



Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”

When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.

One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.

Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” (NIV)

A while ago on Facebook I saw this: “The day you stop asking God for help … is the day you start asking for trouble.” It stuck in my head. It’s catchy. But it didn’t seem right at the time and it still doesn’t seem right.

I don’t ask God for help very often. I generally don’t ask for more than is in the Lord’s Prayer.

Give us this day our daily bread.
Forgive us our trespasses (as we forgive those who trespass against us)
Lead us not into temptation.
Deliver us from evil.

Haven’t I asked for enough already? I’ve asked for more than a socialist with a serious entitlement mentality. And what does the Lord’s Prayer, which is how Jesus told us we should pray, ask of me? Nothing.

It seems almost gluttonous to ask for more. I have what I need in abundance. I am blessed. My problems in life, such as they are, are first world problems. We’re supposed to pray, not whine. Jesus makes clear that there is simply no need to ask God for any further assistance.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Praise God and give thanks! Show some gratitude! In 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, Paul instructs us to

Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

I don’t always thank God, but when I do I feel glad. 🙂


“The day you stop asking God for help … is the day you start asking for trouble.”

Really? This advice is promulgated by The College of the Open Bible.

Note the reference to scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:17. I think they spin a lot out of “pray continually,” don’t you? Just now I visited their Facebook page. They call themselves The College of the Open Bible. Where the Bible is the only authority. And they advise Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. 2 Timothy 2:15.

I think they need to study a bit harder. The day you stop rightly dividing the word of truth is the day you start making things up. Not judging. Just sayin’.

I am Jesus


Phew! It’s hard work trying to be *like* Jesus. Even harder work trying to actually *be* Jesus.

But at last! I’ve joined the exclusive Messiah Complex Club. My Christ delusion is complete.

I’m the latest in a long list of poor deluded fools to join the ranks.

But this time is different.

I’m the first person who thinks he’s Jesus who has logical proof to back the claim!

Here’s my argument.

(P1) I am the light of the world. – John 8:12

(P2) You are the light of the world. – Matthew 5:14

Therefore, (C) I am you and you are me.

So there you have it. Deductive proof that I am Jesus and Jesus is me. It’s a valid argument, which is to say, the conclusion follows from the premises. The premises cannot both be true and the conclusion false. And it’s sound. The premises are true. Take my Word for it.

It’s a Rock solid argument against which even the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

as ever: what is to be done?

I can do nothing without myself. I don’t know what you think you can do. (Just kidding. I read your mind. And your email.) But here are some ideas.

(1) Humour me. (Please don’t point out that I don’t have enough hair to be Jesus. That’s just cruel.)

(2) Medicate me. (Just send me the drugs. Contact me privately and I’ll give you the address.)

(3) Appeal to the last vestiges of reason in my poor deluded fool mind. (I’m probably still more rational than you’ve ever been.)

The last one’s your best shot IMOO.