All posts by Richard

Tawriya

i_say_you

Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.

He writes

Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances — primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is “technically” true.

Deceit and lying may be far more ingrained in the culture than previously thought.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars, several documented below, tawriya occurs when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, although the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—although he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This ruse is considered legitimate according to Sharia law; it does not constitute “lying,” which in Islam is otherwise forbidden, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one’s spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these exceptions, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

I don’t have a problem with tawriya. Ibrahim is wrong. Tawriya isn’t lying.

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (NIV)

Fighting for peace is like subsidising condoms to cut teen pregnancy

F5E06A6C5CA52321E073FADC7AB3D4_h316_w628_m5_cEZWUiHcL

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has been doing some creative thinking.

Condom card aims to cut teen pregnancy

Tennagers as young as 13 are being issued with 12-trip passes to safer sex, in an effort to drive down abortions and teenage pregnancies.

A scheme in which young people are given bus-pass-style cards entitling them to free packets of condoms has been piloted in Hawke’s Bay, and could be picked up nationwide.

This is a Christian libertarianish blog. I have some questions for our readers.

For our libertarianish readers. Would you rather pay for other people’s contraception now, or would you prefer to pay for raising their children later?

For our Christian readers. Do you support the Hawke’s Bay DHB’s initiative “to drive down abortions”?

(Sex, religion and politics. Looking for a polite conversation? You came to the wrong place!)

Social embarrassment and the cost of condoms were identified by the region’s health leaders as factors contributing towards unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Are social embarrassment and the cost of condoms factors contributing towards unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections?

Are social embarrassment and the cost of condoms factors contributing towards teenage pregnancies and abortions?

Teenage pregnancies are not always unplanned pregnancies and homicide is not an STD. What is the Hawke’s Bay DHB actually trying to achieve? Because if we don’t know what the scheme is supposed to do, we won’t know if it works.

I’m going to assume that the Hawke’s Bay DHB is trying to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancies.

The Condom Card scheme is being hailed by Auckland University’s adolescent health research group, which says contraceptive use among youth has remained stagnant at less than 60 per cent for more than 10 years.

New Zealand’s teen pregnancy rate is the second highest in the developed world, with the latest census data showing more than 6000 teenagers became pregnant last year.

Why so high? Social embarrassment and the cost of condoms? Kiwi women are the most polyamorous in the world, according to a study by Durex. Could that have something to do with it?

According to Wikipedia, 40% of teenage pregnancies end in abortion. That’s 2,400 children of young mothers who’ll never get to see the light of day.

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board population health adviser Michele Grigg said it had taken the lead from similar schemes in Britain. “It was time for some creative thinking.”

At present, young people can see their GPs for part-funded prescriptions for condoms. School health nurses and some youth clinics provide them for free, but not in all areas. A packet of condoms costs between $12 and $20.

Is that expensive? Twelve packets of condoms cost between $144 and $240. Is that expensive?

In Hawke’s Bay, more than 40 school counsellors, public health nurses, youth workers and two pharmacists are now trained Condom Card practitioners. Anyone aged between 13 and 24 can see them for a brief talk on safe sex, including advice on consent, and where to access health services, before being issued with a card.

Each time they visit a pharmacist, they get the card clipped and receive a free packet of condoms.

A brief talk with a trained Condom Card practitioner. Is that socially embarrassing? What happens when you notch up 12 clips on your Condom Card? Is the 13th packet free? Or does safe sex suddenly revert to being prohibitively expensive? According to the study by Durex, New Zealanders have sex an average 122 times a year. So the Condom Card might see you right for a couple of months. Then what happens?

Conversations with younger teens would be focused on safety, and encouragement to talk to their parents, Ms Grigg said.

An Auckland University evaluation after six months of the trial found 51 per cent of more than 200 cardholders were young women, with an average age of 16.

The scheme was funded by the DHB, and other regional health authorities had already been in touch, Ms Grigg said.

Hawke’s Bay Family Planning health promoter Gill Lough said chemists at seven participating pharmacies had been given training to be more youth-friendly and not to ask awkward questions.

Are you purchasing these for yourself or for someone else? Have you used condoms before? Are you using any other form of contraception?

It was hoped sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy rates in teens would decline, particularly in areas of high deprivation, such as Wairoa.

In Wellington, Evolve Youth Services manager Kirsten Smith said the scheme would be welcome in the capital. Condoms were free at its clinic, but it saw only a fraction of the city’s teens. “When you look at how hard it is for young people to access healthcare, something like this just makes sense.”

Auckland University’s Youth 2012 principal investigator Terryann Clark said national health and wellbeing surveys showed condom use had not risen since 2000.

“We’re not making a huge amount of difference for young people, and there’s a real need to improve that.

Not making a huge amount of difference? I guess that means we’re either going to stop what we’re doing or do more of it. Prepare to open your legs and wallets.

“Most people have access to chemists, and anything that supports sexually active young people to get good quality care is really positive.”

Only about a quarter of secondary-school-aged students were having sex, and the idea that giving away free condoms would encourage more was a huge misconception, she said.

I see what you did there. 🙂

“It’s not going to make them rush out and do it. If young people have support and education, they are less likely to have intercourse and, when they do, they are more likely to be responsible.”

Pharmacy Guild president Karen Crisp said it was great that pharmacists were being used as a source of easily accessible advice, especially if young people were unable, or less likely, to go elsewhere.

If young people have support and education (i.e., free condoms) then they’re less likely to have intercourse. You think?

I don’t think so. The problem is that the proposed symptomatic relief is going to exacerbate the underlying condition. The underlying condition is a culture of sleeping around. There is no doubt in my mind that encouraging teenage girls to have safe sex is encouraging them to have sex. Giving them a finite supply of free condoms at the age of 13 can only be bad. Like fighting for peace, subsidising condoms to cut teen pregnancy will inevitably lead to blowback.

We’ve heard it all before. Back in 2008. So how did that 5-year plan work out? New Zealand’s teen pregnancy rate is still the second highest in the developed world, with the latest census data showing more than 6000 teenagers became pregnant last year.

Taxpayers fund flavoured condoms

Flavoured condoms will be subsidised by taxpayers to encourage safe sex and reduce the risk of disease and unplanned pregnancies.

The flavours – including strawberry, vanilla, chocolate and banana – became available this month after government drug-funding agency Pharmac reviewed its range of subsidised condoms and identified a need for wider choice.

It already spends about $1million a year subsidising more than nine million condoms, and the range will now be extended to include large, extra large, ribbed and super-sensitive varieties.

Pharmac chief executive Matthew Brougham expected the broader assortment, which would be about 10 per cent cheaper, to be popular among a range of age-groups.

As New Zealand had high rates of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, he believed subsidising more condoms would encourage safer sex.

During consultation some stakeholders had questioned whether it was the right decision, but Mr Brougham had no doubts.

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

Health Minister David Cunliffe was also in favour of the move. “A wider subsidised choice for patients may assist with increasing condom use.”

Pharmac Acting medical director Dilky Rasiah said that overall the decision was about getting better health outcomes through a greater use of condoms, and increasing choice for a lower price.

“Improving sexual health is a government health priority so increasing the range of condoms available can only be good in terms of encouraging safe sex practices.”

Perhaps our Prime Minister in waiting (“may assist”) is more intelligent than we think. Par for the course, though, for the cocksure Ministry of Stupid (“can only be good”).

Each year New Zealand prescribers issued some nine million condoms, which cost the taxpayer less than $1m of the $635m pharmaceutical budget. Under the latest decision, the supplier’s price would reduce by 10 percent, she said.

“Condoms are already funded and always have been. This decision sees a 10 percent price reduction for all condoms, which frees up funds that can be used to purchase other new medicines.”

That’s about 10 cents a condom by my calculations. So how many condoms in a subsidised packet and what is the subsidy per packet? So many questions, so little time.

I don’t support the Hawke’s Bay DHB’s initiative.

I don’t have any creative ideas other than practising abstinence and eating more strawberries.

I’ll let Bob McCoskrie have the last word.

Conservative lobby group Family First has labelled the subsidised flavoured condoms as “morally bankrupt and an insult to people with breast cancer, high blood pressure and heart disease”.

It called for the Government to reverse this spending decision. National director Bob McCoskrie said it was “tragic and a national disgrace”.

“At a time when Pharmac can’t find funding for sufferers of breast cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and other serious problems, that they can find funding to subsidise flavoured condoms,” he said.

“This is simply about funding sexual behaviour that shouldn’t be at the cost of the taxpayer or other more life-threatening medication.

“Is Pharmac going to consider subsidising sex toys next?”

He cited a number of people missing out on funding for drugs.

“Yet Pharmac can find funding for strawberry flavoured condoms.”

A word about Socialism

537838_10153445455140515_1251393413_n

… and let me first say a word about Socialism. There are a great many Socialists whose opinions and whose views I have the greatest respect for – [hear, hear] – men some of whom I know well, and whose friendship I have the honour to enjoy. A good many of those gentlemen who have these delightful, rosy views of a great and brilliant future to the world are so remote from hard facts of daily life and of ordinary politics that I am not very sure that they will bring any useful or effective influence to bear upon the immediate course of events. I am dealing rather with those of violent and extreme views who call themselves Socialists in the next few observations I shall venture with your indulgence to address to you.

1394392_10152359786199126_385847400_n

To the revolutionary Socialist I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. [Cheers.] There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we have to take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward.

1450125_10202208941248421_264077122_n

Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don’t think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play – a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play – in relation to men and States. [Cheers.]

1233380_10152278448779126_1918446783_n

Ah, gentlemen, I don’t want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists – a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common – is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way – “You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite.” [Cheers.]

3-They-Live-OBEY-1988

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

community_targets_store_selling_legal_highs

This is a recent press release from New Zealand’s #1 libertarian.

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

“There have been intermittent calls for further government crackdowns on the legal high industry by those involved in local body politics, most recently from the Team Manurewa organisation, who believe New Zealand should emulate steps taken in New South Wales to ban all psychoactive substances. In the interests of harm minimisation, individual freedom and small local government, these calls should be ignored by Auckland Council,” says Stephen Berry.

Berry is right. Crackdowns on the legal high industry are outside the mandate of local government. They’re outside the mandate of national government, too.

“This year the National Government passed pragmatic legislation aimed at maintaining some standards of safety in psychoactive substances. While I have long been on public record as opposing the unrealistic and hypocritical threshold involved in proving a substance to be safe, and continue to maintain that position, I concede that the law did at least set up a framework for these substances to continue to be sold without resorting to the ineffective club of total prohibition.”

It’s a bold concession. This is the same law I have elsewhere described as pure evil. But Berry is right, again. One good thing the Psychoactive Substances Act has done is set up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances.

Actually, it hasn’t. The Act delegates the task of setting up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances to the Ministry of Health, a task that has yet to see completion. While we wait, we have interim product approvals of untested research chemicals. Hopefully, this situation doesn’t contribute to the larger “die while you wait” public health system. (In the event of sudden death, call the National Poisons Centre.)

Actually, it’s not a good thing, either. It’s the lesser evil. A regulatory framework is the best we libertarians can expect. But does it have to be this one, implemented by the Ministry of Stupid? (I’d sooner have one from Colorado, Washington, or even Uruguay. $1 per gram!)

Stephen Berry recognises that some nasty substances have resulted from the legal high industry but claims this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. “New Zealand previously had some relatively safe recreational legal substances in the form of benzyl piperazine and the ingredients in the very earliest forms of cannabis substitutes. Unfortunately a combination of a small number of cases of irresponsible use, coupled with nosey neighbourhood crusaders and a scandal driven media eventually resulted in their ban. As time has gone on, activist pressure has resulted in more products being banned and what has replaced them has often been filthier, nastier and more harmful. Many of the synthetic cannabis products on the market prior to the new laws were harmful because of prohibition rather than because of a lack of it. Indeed there is a strong case for the claim that if relatively benign genuine cannabis were legal, the market for synthetic alternatives would disappear.”

Berry is right that some nasty substances (causing all of the harms listed on the protest placard pictured above) have resulted from the legal high industry and right, again, that this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. As he goes on to illustrate.

I’ve said before that the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, it is. Thanks to the past prohibitionist policies of the New Zealand government, the only substances the legal highs industry can offer consumers are novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing. Bring back BZP! And legalise cannabis.

Should the legal highs industry offer consumers novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing? Because, legally, now they can. ‘Because it was there’ was the reason George Mallory gave for climbing Mount Everest. He disappeared in 1924 attempting to reach the summit. Is ‘because we can’ a good enough reason for the legal highs industry to peddle potentially dangerous drugs? K2 takes you higher.

“The crusaders for bans on new liquor stores, gambling venues and legal high retailers are usually driven by a wowserish desire to ensure the lives of everyone else are as miserable as their own. They’re convinced that their idea of how one should live their day to day life is so superior that everyone else should be forced to adopt it.” Manurewa Action Local Board member Simeon Brown is a prime example of moral crusaders who value personal prejudice over logic. “Mr. Brown advocates the Manurewa Local Board ban sales of legal highs in their board area even if they are proven completely safe. That position is ridiculously totalitarian.”

It’s not pleasant accepting the fact that there are shades of totalitarianism. Nonetheless, evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation is a much lesser evil than the ridiculously totalitarian position of the likes of killjoy Brown. We’ve had more than enough of the latter and not nearly enough of the former. In fact, none. We’ve yet to see the implementation of any significant evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation in New Zealand.

Mr. Berry believes the concepts of individual choice and personal responsibility are far better than any prohibitionist approach to the various vices hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders choose to enjoy. “Our country does not have issues with alcohol because of its availability. Issues with alcohol are the result of a culture that promotes excess and individuals that do not take responsibility for their own behaviour. No amount of new laws and regulations will make a dent in this. It is for individuals to willingly change their own behaviour, not politicians to implement more and more bans. One only needs look at the result of US alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the result of widespread drug prohibition today to see that more laws will not only be ineffective but actually exacerbate the problems associated with enjoying vice.”

Change comes from within.

“Preventing new liquor stores does not prevent the supply of alcohol, nor dent the profitability of its sale. What it does do is entrench the existing operators and maintain their profits. Were the market allowed to decide how many alcohol retailers are appropriate, the sales of the product would be spread amongst a greater number of players in a more crowded market resulting in liquor retailing actually being less profitable than it is under the current regime.”

Berry identifies some of the less immediate outcomes observable by viewing council crackdowns on the liquor industry through the lens of the Law of Unintended Consequences. These less immediate outcomes—crony capitalism and a lucrative liquor industry—are among the costs overlooked by the authors of overzealous drug policy

“The Government has put in place regulations to deal with alcohol and legal highs at a national level and those regulations are more than enough. Local government should not be getting more involved. Councils and local bodies already tax, spend and borrow far too much. The last thing they should be doing is getting involved in the personal lives of individuals as well.”

More than enough is too much.

Stephen Berry was the Affordable Auckland candidate for Auckland Mayor in the 2013 local body elections. He finished in third place receiving 13,560 votes. Affordable Auckland’s five core policies did not include how legal high regulation should be approached and the party membership includes a range of views.

Let It Die

Forget the former things;
    do not dwell on the past. (NIV)

Everything is breaking,
No mistaking,
It’s all changing,
Tear it down,
Watch it all start burning

All that’s done is done just
Let it lie

It’s a revelation,
Celebration,
Graduation,
Times collide,
Watch the world awaken

All the past regrets from days gone by,
Let it go,
Let it die

Hidden in Plain Sight #2: Don’t tread on me

1985

I used to be a huge Metallica fan. (Doesn’t Kirk have lovely hair? I used to have hair like that.)

Over the summer of 1986/87 I played Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets back-to-back, non-stop.

I wore out the vinyl.

Metallica.Cliff Burton.by Ross Halfin

I cried when Metallica’s bass player Cliff Burton died in a bus accident in September 1986.

But Burton’s death was nothing compared to the tragedy that Metallica were to bring upon themselves five years later, in 1991.

Metallica-Em-All

Metallica were the Gods of thrash metal. They defined the genre. And they used to sing about wholesome things like mass murder (Kill ‘Em All, 1983), dying in the electric chair (Ride the Lightning, 1984), cocaine addiction (Master of Puppets, 1986) and governmental corruption (… And Justice for All, 1988).

But then … they sold out. Big time.

The second definition of selling out refers to putting aside musical quality or original intentions in favor of commercial success, where a distinction is made for those who achieve success without changing their original sound. The difference between the two is often subjective. Whilst artists may change their musical direction for commercial reasons, such as pressure from major labels who require songs to appeal to mass markets a change in sound may also be part of a natural progression of creative maturity.

An example of an artist being accused of selling out is the band Metallica, whose 1991 eponymous album has been considered as the turning point in the band’s musical direction, and have been called the “poster boys for musical un-integrity” after the band’s attempt to sue fans downloading their music through Napster. The album, known as The Black Album, saw critics and Bob Rock, the album’s producer, acknowledge that there was a move away from the band’s previous sound. Rock claimed that the change stemmed from the band’s desire to “make the leap to the big, big leagues”, whilst some fans blamed Rock himself, going as far to eventually create an internet petition demanding the band cut their ties with him. However, other fans did not consider the change in sound to be significant enough to be considered selling out and others accepted the change as part of a natural evolution of the band’s style. Ultimately The Black Album became the band’s most commercially successful, going 16x platinum, but the differing reaction by fans to the album is an example of the difficulty in labelling an artist as a sellout objectively.

Was the release of the Black Album “part of a natural progression of creative maturity”? No. There is no difficulty whatsoever in labelling Metallica, circa 1991, as a sellout objectively. They sacrificed their musical integrity on the alter of commercial success. And what unparalleled commercial performance! The love of money is the root of all evil.

I used to joke that the members of Metallica had been abducted by aliens and replaced by Bieber-like body snatchers for who-knows-what nefarious alien purposes. One similarly aggrieved fan wrote an entire comic strip premised upon the abduction of the real band members and their replacement by simulacra. (I wish I could now find it.)

True Metallica fans don’t mince words.

I remember driving one morning just after I had received my drivers license. I was 16, it was summer in Minnesota, and the local radio station was about to debut the new Metallica song, Enter Sandman. Life was great. I was so pumped and nervous as I’d been a fan since before Justice was released. The song came on…and so began one of the worst days of my adolescent life, and I’m not sure I’ve ever recovered. Serious life-bummer. I was more let down than the first time I got dumped by a girl. To my credit, I kept it together and didn’t plow my car at high speed into a huge tree to spare myself the pain I was feeling.

The biggest piece of shit ever written by Metallica! I dont know if it is because they enlisted Bob Rock (WANKER) to ptoduce this album or if it is because they got lazy. Real dissappointment. I Know many people like this album and defend it but it is a pice of shit. Sorry all u Metallica die hards out there. I’d rather listen to myself take a shit than have to listen to this garbage.

I was an atheist in those days. It’s only now that I realise that Metallica did far more than sacrifice their musical integrity on the alter of commercial success. They sold their very souls to Satan. This fact is hidden in plain sight. Let’s take a closer look at the Black Album.

black-album-e1317326228409

The first thing to notice about the Black album is … it’s very black. Metallica’s logo can just about be made out in the darkness of the top-left-hand corner. Black is the devil’s colour. (Sure, it’s also New Zealand’s national colour, but Metallica sure weren’t thinking of the All Blacks when they squeezed this one out.)

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (NIV)

In the bottom-right-hand corner is a stylised, coiled serpent, that bears an intentional likeness to the rattlesnake on the Gadsden flag.

Gadsden_flag.svg

Notwithstanding that “Don’t tread on me” is a libertarian slogan and the Gadsden flag rattlesnake is a libertarian icon (I have no idea what happened to the missing apostrophe in ‘dont’) let’s see what happens when we take the snake, flip it horizontally and tip it on its side.

let_me_take_you_down

Now we see the true nature of Metallica’s mascot. It’s a serpent, its coils spelling out 666—the Number of the Beast of Revelation—and shaped into a slide to take you down on a one-way trip to never never land. This is snakes and ladders but with no ladders. Snake, rattle ‘n’ roll!

That’s the album art, it’s pretty clear.

What about the lyrical content?

Well, the very first track is Enter Satan. (Or, rather, Enter Sandman, but we all know who Sandman is.)

Say your prayers little one
Don’t forget, my son
To include everyone

Tuck you in, warm within
Keep you free from sin
Till the Sandman, he comes

Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
We’re off to never never land

Nek minnit, you belong to Satan.

Sad But True.

Hey
I’m your life
I’m the one who took you there
Hey
I’m your life
And I no longer care

I’m your truth, telling lies
I’m your reasoned alibis
I’m inside open your eyes
I’m you

Holier Than Thou

Little whispers circle around your head
Why don’t you worry about yourself instead?

Who are you? Where ya been? Where ya from?
Gossip is burning on the tip of your tongue
You lie so much you believe yourself

The Unforgiven

Never free.
Never me.
So I dub thee unforgiven.

You labelled me,
I’ll label you.
So I dub thee unforgiven.

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us? Nope. I dub thee unforgiven.

Wherever I May Roam.

And I’ll redefine anywhere
Anywhere I may roam
Where I lay my head is home

…and the earth becomes my throne

It’d pretty clear who this song is about.

The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Don’t Tread On Me

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, rattling of her tail
Never begins it, never, but once engaged…
Never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage

Don’t tread on me!

OK, so I can’t really knock this one. 🙂

The exception that proves the rule? It’s a half-decent song, great lyrics! (But it still plods like no speed metal I ever heard.)

Through The Never is a trip through never never land with your new friend, the Sandman.

Twisting
Turning
Through the never Never

Nothing Else Matters is hardly an improvement on nihilism, the doctrine that nothing matters.

Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters

In God we Trust? No, apparently it’s in man we trust and God doesn’t matter.

Of Wolf And Man

I hunt
Therefore I am
Harvest the land
Taking of the fallen lamb

Off through the new day’s mist I run
Off from the new day’s mist I have come
We shift
Pulsing with the earth
Company we keep
Roaming the land while you sleep.

More roaming the land, going back and forth on it. While you sleep. (Never mind that noise you heard. It’s just the beast under your bed, in your closet, in your head.)

The God That Failed

Pride you took
Pride you feel
Pride that you felt when you’d kneel

Trust you gave
A child to save
Left you cold and him in grave

I see faith in your eyes
Never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
Broken is the promise, betrayal
The healing hand held back by deepened nail

Follow the god that failed

There are two further tracks but I can’t go on. It’s a desperate, dire, demonic album.

And, quite apart from that, it’s a steaming pile of the proverbial. So watch your step.

dont-tread-on-me

Hidden in Plain Sight #1: El Diablo

obama-EL-DIABLO

080106eldiablo

clinton_hand_signal

“People that are Christians now, but were satanists, recognized President Clinton’s signal at his inauguration as a sign of Satan. That seems fairly cut and dried, and it is. Clinton communicated what he wanted to the people to whom he wanted to communicate. The whole affair with him flashing the satanic hand signal took only a couple of seconds.”

– Fritz Springmeier, Blood of the Illuminati

This is the first of four (maybe more) blog posts.

Manuela’s mother says she was, however, increasingly disturbed over her daughter’s lifestyle. Especially when Manuela had two teeth removed and had metal vampire fangs implanted. She was also taken aback by her daughter’s tattoo—an upside down cross on her scalp.

But the hand sign? “Well,” she said, “I thought it was like the sign the deaf give, meaning, I love you.”

“I often heard Manuela say she was not of this world and was a satanic vampire,” recounted her mother, “but I figured it was just so much silly talk. Just another way of living. After all, not every Goth vampire ends up sacrificing victims to Satan.”

My hypothesis is that Satan leaves his calling card hidden in plain sight.

devil-horns-metal

Keep it metal! \m/

This post concerns the sign of the horns. Apparently, it was popularised by the late Ronnie James Dio.

ronnie_james_dio_switzerland

Ronnie James Dio was known for popularizing the sign of the horns in heavy metal. He claimed his Italian grandmother used it to ward off the evil eye (which is known in the Italian culture as malocchio). Dio began using the sign soon after joining the metal band Black Sabbath in 1979. The previous singer in the band, Ozzy Osbourne, was rather well known at using the “peace” sign at concerts, raising the index and middle finger in the form of a V. Dio, in an attempt to connect with the fans, wanted to similarly use a hand gesture. However, not wanting to copy Osbourne, he chose to use the sign his grandmother always made. The horns became famous in metal concerts very soon after Black Sabbath’s first tour with Dio. The sign would later be appropriated by heavy metal fans under the name “maloik”, a corruption of the original malocchio.

BlackSabbath19720012200.sized

Terry “Geezer” Butler of Black Sabbath can be seen “raising the horns” in a photograph taken in 1971. This would indicate that the “horns” and their association with metal occurred much earlier than Ronnie James Dio suggests. The photograph is included in the CD booklet of the Symptom of the Universe: The Original Black Sabbath 1970–1978 compilation album.

I can’t find the photo.

three_versions_el_diablo

The “El Diablo” hand sign often is confused with the deaf’s signing of the phrase, “I love you.” While at first this appears an odd resemblance, we register an “ahh, I get it!” emotion when we discover that the person who invented, or created, the hand sign system for the deaf, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist. Did Keller purposely design the deaf’s “I love you” sign to be such a remarkable imitation of the classic sign of Satan? Was Keller saying, basically, “I love you, Devil?”

Frato Metallo uses it. (The sign language version.) But is it metal? Is it of God?

1380459_540909639321417_1566664649_n

Even Pastor Bob defends the use of the “devil horns”.

Personally, I don’t feel comfortable with the use of the devil’s horns symbol.

I think the devil’s horns symbol symbolises the devils’s horns. Call me old-fashioned.

If I’m at a metal concert – or anywhere else that I mean business – what’s wrong with a fist thrown in the air?

1238357_236271533196510_636005253_n