Category Archives: Keep it Metal!
Last call for synthacrack!
I sense an impending ban on the so-called “legal highs”. Get stockpiling, synthapeeps!
‘Cuz if you don’t stock up now, you’ll be kicking your wicked habits sooner rather than later!
The witch burning anti-synthetics brigade has gone into overdrive!
Someone pressed the moral panic button!
Seventeen-year-old Jesse Murray is the face of synthetic high addiction!
He’s an engaging, bright, polite young man, who is horribly addicted to synthetic cannabis!
Legal high habit takes teen to rock bottom
Each morning, 17-year-old Jesse Murray wakes on his cardboard mattress in Christchurch’s hidden haunts and walks the streets, spitting into a white, bloodstained tissue before arriving at his destination.
His days are dictated by the opening and closing hours of the nearest legal high shop.
If he has the money, he will hand over anything between $25 and $80 a day – money he has begged for.
Despite it being illegal for him to purchase the drug because of his age, sometimes, out of sympathy, the storekeepers give it to him for free.
Watch this interview by Campbell Live reporter Jendy Harper and tell me that young Jesse Murray doesn’t have a great acting career ahead of him … if he can stay off the synthacrack!
But srsly. The unfortunate fact is that Jesse’s experience isn’t uncommon. (“Each time he tried to quit he began to vomit blood and convulse.”) Here’s a story left in the comments section on the 3 News website. It’s typical of many that I’ve read or heard.
Coming off synthetic cannabis is by far harder than coming off others drugs such as weed or P. Well in my experience any way. I had smoked weed for years. Done P too ! Quite often all together. Then once all that got to hard to find I started smoking synthetic. Worst mistake I every made. I got hooked fast. I was rolling joints to smoke at work. Walking down to Cosmic corner in my lunch break. I couldn’t stop. If I did I would get hot flushes, rage would fill me and I’d explode. One day I realised I couldn’t continue and locked myself in my bathroom for a week while coming off the stuff. It was literally the worst week of my life. I’ve never suffered such horrible symptoms before. I fear for those who still smoke the stuff.
This is a PR disaster for both the legal highs industry and those promoting the Psychoactive Substances Act as the pathway to sensible drug law reform. It was an error of judgement on the part of us drug law reformers not to speak out against the legal highs industry taking up the government’s offer to allow the ongoing sale of existing products for the duration of an extended interim period. We should have recognised that leaving 15 novel, untested synthetic cannabinoids on the market was an unacceptable risk.
The industry now looks to be shut down, if not by this government before the election, then by the next coalition government after the election. Winston Peters looks set to be “kingmaker” once again, and his NZ First Party has already jumped on the banwagon.
There is one remaining opportunity for the legal highs industry to reclaim the moral high ground and that opportunity is now. Voluntarily recall all your products! Before Peter Dunne cracks under the cognitive dissonance and bans all the substances.
Young National Socialists …. Tyrant Spawn!
NZ Young Nats (National Party) National Socialists LORD PLEB RAPINE!!!
Wikipedia….
“A robber baron or robber knight is a historic term and title of disdain that was applied to the behavior and practices of a group of unscrupulous and despotic landowners (nobles) of the medieval period in Europe.[1] They hindered commerce by imposing unauthorized tolls and tariffs and at times by sometimes ransoming or hijacking the goods outright of (pack-animal-dependent) caravans and riverine traffic amidst the poorly roaded tracts of the vast and far-flung demesnes…”
The Young Nats are Tyrant Spawn!
The above Meme/Add was captioned….
“Since National’s been in power, extra money has been spent to make sure everyone pays their fair share of tax.”
THE YOUNG BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Greedy MOTHERF*&Kers!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is an admission that NATIONAL has Set the Hounds upon us!
We… The Tax Slaves of New Zealand.
Its like something straight out of Feudalism!!!!!!!!!!!
Bloody Medieval!
Because It’s after midnight, I dont have time now to write up a Full blogpost on just how F56king Evil this declaration is…. How Friggin Sick the Young Nats are…. how utterly Brainwashed by our State indoctrination system these little F87wits are!
I will modify this post tomorrow…. I simply had to Blog some of my CONTEMPT for these Nazi Youth.
The thought that many of these freaks intend to be in Government over my Children fills me with wrath!!!
I must get a grip…
Is there any real hope of converting them??? Of saving their Souls from the wretched path of Political Thuggery…they are on?
To any Young Nat who reads this…. I challenge you to really contemplate exactly what it means… to exact Taxes… via coercion….
what sorts of people are the victims of such a program? …Dont delude yourself that it is the greedy wealthy…. the majority will be the struggling poor whom have already paid thousands and thousands into the system while a great % of the slothful and bureaucratic parasitically sit on benefits or in State Jobs which produce nothing!
Monkeys on the back of the productive…
It is the hard working and productive who you are calling ‘Tax cheats!!!’
You Make me Sick!
Guess what Ye Blood sucking Vampires…. It’s All their money!!!! Not the Governments Money!
They Earned it! Not You Extortionist Gangsters!
Can you comprehend that????
You busybodies!
You abusers of Law and Power!
You think that simply because Parliament writes some Laws that that can magically give you the right to demand the wealth from those whom have Earned it?
Or that Your social program somehow legitimize your exactions???
It is *No Crime* to attempt to keep what is rightfully yours!
Contemplate that!!… ye smug pompous arses!
REPENT I Say! Or Be Damned to Hell!
You Robber Barron scum!
Forsake the Harlot with whom you have defiled yourselves!
Be Born Again!
Forget all the Despotic Lies the minions taught you in Uni Political science!
Go buy some Libertarian books and Start learning some truth.
Read more…. Fascist John Key is not a pimple on St Milton Friedmans Holy Butt!
Spiel on brain washing, and socialist engines of confomity. State education.
Evidence for Evolutionism #2. The male libido.
Don Brash is in the news again following today’s publication of his autobiography Incredible Luck. True to form, the NZ Herald focuses on the most salacious bits of the book.
In a warts-and-all chapter covering his personal life, Dr Brash tackles head-on his reputation for being a womaniser. But beyond arguing that men have an “extremely powerful biological urge to have sex”, he struggles to explain why he had extra-marital affairs which ultimately took a huge toll on his personal life and plunged him into a deep trough of depression.
Dr Brash writes that adultery was certainly not part of his Christian upbringing, but argues “that the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive”.
He realised, of course, that some men were gay. “I have never suspected, even for a single moment, that I might be gay.”
I take it as read(-blooded) that Brash is right. Men do, indeed, have an extremely powerful biological urge to have sex and the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive. The question is, what best explains this primal fact? Creationism or evolutionism?
Evolutionism is premised on survival and reproduction. More precisely, evolutionism is premised on survival to reproduce. The DNA of individual organisms that don’t reproduce doesn’t make it into the next or subsequent generations. It’s that simple. Virginity is both anomalous and an evolutionary death-knell. How many of your ancestors were virgins? I bet none.
Evolutionism offers a compelling explanation of the male libido.
We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.
So says Richard Dawkins in his classic The Selfish Gene. And the experience of being male surely bears out the claim. Over the years, my own libido has got me into heaps of trouble, including relationships with women. I even reproduced! But I survived. š (And I’m older and wiser now, of course.)
It’s not that there aren’t problems with the evolutionist account. Of course, there are, and there’s one big problem in particular, viz., the origin of sex itself. The first forms of life (according to the theory of evolution) were single-celled organisms or simple multi-celled organisms that reproduced by a process of asexual reproduction called budding. It’s a mystery when, why and how the first two such organisms got together and said, “Fuck budding, let’s be fuck buddies.” I expect my evolutionist readers will have some fanciful accounts to share in the comments section below.
So, what’s the best creationist explanation of the male libido? Well, one explanation springs immediately to mind. In Genesis 1, God created mankind in his own image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, āBe fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. … (NIV)
But, men being men … did God seriously expect that we were simply going to obey his command to “be fruitful and increase in number” without a great deal of whining and complaining and general disobedience? No! So he made sure that we’d be fruitful and increase in number by giving us sex drives—quite literally—on steroids!
(See also Evidence for Evolutionism #1. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.)
Heart Ripped out. This ones for all the Dying Dads … and the Survivors.
I’ve been to the edge.
I’ve stood and looked down.
I’ve lost a lot of friends there….
Literally.
According to Socialist Feminism Men are Dogs.
They say We carelessly get our rocks off and run away at the first sign of Responsibility.
They have geared the legal system to punish Men because they are de-facto guilty for all marriage failures…etc… who else could be responsible????
Well the statistics tell us quite a different story!
Just whom has been playin whom???
Men do Crazy shit when they have had their Families ripped away from them.
They Despair of life.
They Feel like failures…. completely worthless.
They can become a Danger to themselves and everybody else.
All their reasons for living…. for striving…. are gone.
It’s a living Hell.
The Police are slow to prosecute woman for assault.
The courts Favour custody for the woman.
Woman rarely pay any child support.
Worst of all It’s the Kids who suffer the most.
The Bullshit can be so deep that some men give up trying to maintain a relationship with their kids because it is so unbearable dealing with the viciousness of their Exs.
So many Kids suffer at the hands of wicked ‘step Fathers’ because of the utter foolishness and selfishness of their mothers who shack up with complete Scum.
Yet who will tell the Kids it’s all their selfish Moms fault?
When will Woman wake up to their own shameful derelict of duty in estranging their Kids from Daddy?
When will they cease to use their kids as Pawns their petty Games of Vengeance?
When will they *Really* put their children’s well being first?
If you dont end up in Jail…. dont end up on Prozac…. or Dead.
It takes two years to start to recover and see the sun shining again… yet thankfully it will shine again.
Hopefully you can establish some sort of working relationship in which you can be a part of your children’s lives.
Even if you have been away for years… its never too late to attempt to make contact… hopefully Time will have worked some magic, eased tensions, and restored some Reason.
The regret of never trying would be worse than any rejection.
In the mean time it is important to focus on self improvement and setting new goals… fostering new dreams.
Ultimately…. Because The world is much bigger than Superman…. and nobody can be with their Children 24/7…even when we are in Stable relationships we must commit our children’s souls…. their well-being to Gods Loving providence….
If you are alone… This is something you ought to pray for Daily.
And dont let one Bitch destroy your faith in Marriage… when you find love again… Be brave enough to give it everything!
Dad’s are not Obsolete.
You are important you know!
Just a few thoughts from a Brother.
Tim Wikiriwhi
What every single open letter to New Zealand abortion providers sounds like to me
Here’s what every single open letter to New Zealand abortion providers sounds like to me.
To New Zealand baby killers,
The Infanticide Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ILRANZ) would like to thank you for all the amazing work you do, often unseen and unacknowledged. While we do not write this type of letter nearly as often as we should, those of us who pursue a pro-death agenda admire and respect the enormous role you play in ensuring and enabling access to baby killing services. We know that providing these services is all too frequently done at a cost to your own safety and wellbeing. We honour your bravery; bearing the brunt of pro-life rebukes, threats and attempts to expose clinic/medical providers as villains.
ILRANZ and pro-death supporters know better. We know that in an ideal world, one we strive to attain, that what you do should be understood as a basic health service. That killing babies should be one part of a wider sexual and reproductive health strategy that enables access free of charge and without barriers to those who need it; without judgement, without recrimination, and without fearing for oneās safety. There would be no stigma and no shame because baby killing would be conceptualised as a basic human right and an integrated health service.
We also know that inside the four walls of slaughterhouses and butcheries around the country that women get some of the best baby killing in the world. You play a fundamental role in ensuring these services continue, but also that pregnant people (especially women) are cared for, listened to and provided with the best option based on individual need. The time spent holding someoneās hand as they explain why killing their own unborn child is their only option. …
That’s enough of that. The cold hard fact of the matter is that the above adaptation is exactly how the original letter sounds to many. (It didn’t always sound that way to me.) Anyone interested can read more at the link above.
What I’d like to do now is present an argument against abortion.
It’s called the Argument from Caution.
(The following is closely based on this article by Matt Flannagan.)
Suppose one morning you are in the bush hunting deer. You have been informed that at some point that morning a party of school children is going to be hiking along the deer trail where you are hunting. Mid-morning you hear rustling and see movement in the bushes. Despite careful examination you are unable to ascertain whether the movement you see is a human being, a deer, or another animal. Are you justified in shooting at the target?
The answer is clearly no … This is because
(i) You know that at some point in the morning, in that place, a human being will be present;
(ii) It is morning and you are perceiving a living object in that place; and
(iii) You are unable to identify whether what you perceive is a human being or not.
It would be an act of gross recklessness or negligence to destroy the target because these three facts are in play. A similar argument applies in the case of killing a pre-natal human being.
You know that at some point between (and including) conception and birth, a human being with an unalienable right to life comes into existence. You know that a pre-natal human being is in existence during this period of time. Hence, unless it is beyond reasonable doubt that a pre-natal human being does not have an unalienable right to life, it is seriously immoral to destroy it.
Now I don’t know what theory of human rights the author of the original open letter subscribes to (or even if she has one) or when she thinks human life begins. I subscribe to a Jeffersonian theory of human rights, and I think that human life begins at conception.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But, for the sake or argument, it matters not whether my theory of human rights, or view about when life begins, or hers, are true. That’s the whole point of the Argument from Caution. Caution mandates that we assume that human life begins at conception and that an unborn child has an unalienable right to life from that point onwards.
See also Saturnās Children. Libertarianism and Abortion.
See also Butchered at birth.
POSTSCRIPT. Please don’t confuse evincing a quite staggering degree of hypocrisy with exercising a prerogative to change one’s mind. Do as I say, not as I have done.
Be kind to Hone Harawira
Hone Harawira wants to execute legal high retailers, reports Whale Oil.
According to the New Zealand Herald, families demand scrapping of legal-high laws, but Mana Party Leader and Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira wants to take things a whole lot further.
Mana MP Hone Harawira … said drug retailers should be killed.
āIf there is one law I could pass, it would be line up the guys who are making the most money out of this legal drug stuff, put them on TV and then publicly execute them, and then introduce a law to say the next bastard that does it is going to get the same treatment,ā he said.
I don’t doubt that Harawira said this.
Let’s be clear. He wants manufacturers and retailers who are going about their legal business to be publicly executed. He would like the State to kill manufacturers and retailers who are licenced to manufacture and retail legal highs under legislation that was passed near unanimously by Parliament in July of last year.
By now, everyone knows that Hone Harawira’s addicted to hate. How should we respond to his latest not-even-barely-concealed homicidal exhortations?
Hey, Hone, here’s an idea. Instead of executing the manufacturers and retailers who are operating within the regulatory boundaries set down by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, let’s execute the 119 MPs who last year voted for the new law instead. Oh, wait, that includes you, Hone! (Do as I say or I’ll kill you? Do as I say *and* I’ll kill you!)
Bad idea. Repaying hate with hate is what’s made Hone the hateful man he is today. He bears a grudge against the majority of his fellow kiwis and their ancestors who behaved badly. “White motherfuckers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit.” (Puritanical bullshit? This from the man who wants to close down legal high shops. Right.)
There’s no mana in calling for the judicial killing of law-abiding citizens. (And none, of course, in calling for a dictatorship under John Banks.)
Here’s a better idea. Let’s treat Hone Harawira with kindness. Let’s listen to his legitimate concerns. Let’s even consider shutting down the legal highs industry, at least until such time as its products have been properly tested and have passed the safety tests that the industry itself is promoting.
In what I just said, I may sound like anything but a libertarian … but I’m still very much a libertarian. (Got that, Tim?!) God knows, I’m all for legal drugs! But I don’t want to see New Zealand’s bold regulatory experiment be judged a failure and I very much fear that I’m witnessing a train wreck in slow motion. It would be a smart move on the part of the legal highs industry to voluntarily remove its products from the shelves. Because, next to the unfortunate few (or not so few) who have suffered physical and psychological harms as a result of consuming the industry’s products, those whom the implementation of the interim period is hurting (or is going to hurt) the most … is the industry itself. IMHO.
In the interim, opposition to the legal highs industry is only going to increase between now and September’s general election. New Zealand’s most influential political blogger is increasingly vocal in his opposition. Things look set to escalate up another notch early next month when the anti-synthetics brigade takes to the streets on Saturday 5 April in a coordinated nationwide protest. How is it all going to end?
All will be well that ends well if we legalise cannabis. And do so as soon as possible, i.e., now. From a public health perspective, it’s literally insane that the safer, natural alternative to the synthetic cannabinoids remains illegal while untested, synthetic substitutes are given the State seal of approval. And if we’d legalised cannabis a decade or so ago or never criminalised it in the first place, we wouldn’t be dealing with the current situation. I told you so … š
God hates fags? God hates us all!
Fred Phelps thought that fags were special. They’re not.
Fags think that fags are special. They’re not.
None of us is special.
We all sin differently. Schadenfreude is a sin. (It’s a form of vengeance. “Schadenfreude is mine; I will laugh, saith the Lord.” Perhaps Fred Phelps got that bit right.)
You people are fucked in the head for rejoicing in another human beings death, no matter how much of a cunt he was.
Fred Phelps has died! Let’s spread a little hate worldwide! No, wait … let’s not do that.
Slayer To Protest Westboro Baptist Church Leader Fred Phelpsā Funeral
Let’s picket his funeral instead!
I’d rather see them play a set out front than picket it!
Me too, bro. But I suspect that news article’s a hoax, anyway. So let’s have another ridiculously over-the-top Slayer fan video instead. š
Just a note on Slayer. Slayer’s lyrics are sometimes anti-Christian, due in large part to the fact that guitarist Kerry King is a notorious atheist douche-bag. Notwithstanding that some heavy metal bands (whom I won’t name) are genuinely anti-Christian, Slayer is not really an anti-Christian band. Art is art. It’s just an image thing.
Itās not that these people believe in this stuff. Itās just … a cool imagery that goes along with the music …
Slayer is just a bunch of guys having fun. Metal is fun! Keep it metal!
God loves us all. As vocalist Tom Araya makes clear, “He doesn’t … God doesnāt hate.”
God loves us all. He loves fags, Fred Phelps, Slayer, the Schadenfreuders … and you. Repent!
Repent now and accept God’s gift of eternal life.
RIP Fred Phelps. (Goodbye and thanks for all the good excuses to post more Slayer.)
Submission to the PSRA
To: psychoactives@moh.govt.nz
Subject: Regulations Consultation
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes; to empower people to work together for peace and true justice; and to institute a proper and just balance between the power of the state and the rights and dignity of the individual.
Psychoactive substances regulations exists to give government some measure of control over what substances people use, how they use them, and who uses them.
Cannabis is not regulated. It is prohibited. Paradoxically, in the case of cannabis, prohibition means that cannabis is almost entirely uncontrolled. Nearly everyone who wants to use cannabis does so, including minors. For minors, cannabis is as readily available as alcohol.
Ostensibly, the purpose of cannabis prohibition is harm reduction. The three pillars of harm reduction are supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation. Under prohibition, there is no control of supply of, no reduction in demand for, and no limitation of problems caused by, cannabis.
Government must regulate cannabis if it is to gain any measure of control over who uses cannabis. Regulation is de facto legalisation. For the government and for the cannabis law reform movement, a regulated, taxable market in cannabis is win-win.
Various parties, including the Associate Minister of Health himself, have suggested that substances currently controlled (or not, in the case of cannabis) under the Misuse of Drugs Act might, in future, be controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act. A simple legislative amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act removing cannabis from its schedules would immediately bring cannabis under the Psychoactive Substances Act, where its risk of harm could then be assessed against the same standards as will apply to any other psychoactive substance.
There is more than one way to skin a dead cat, and this is not the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’s preferred pathway to cannabis law reform. However, the Party makes the present submission on the assumption that the future pathway to legal cannabis will be as has just been suggested.
Cannabis is not a substance, nor is it a product. It is a plant, a plant that anyone with a green thumb can grow. Therefore, many of the consultation questions in the supplied consultation document are inapplicable to cannabis. Since we do not have to answer all the questions, we answer only those questions we deem to be relevant.
Our main concerns are “truth in labelling” and appropriate measures to minimise access to cannabis by minors. Hence, the questions we answer below are mainly those concerning labelling and packaging (in Chapter 4 of the consultation document), and place of sale and advertising (in Chapter 5).
14. Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient?
Yes.
15. Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient?
Yes.
16. Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient?
Yes.
17. Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.
No. There is no need to restrict the size of a packet of cannabis. Because no one has ever overdosed on cannabis in all of human history. If there must be restriction, the size of a packet of cannabis should be restricted to 1 oz. There is no need for decimalisation.
18. Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?
No. Consumers can do this themselves with scissors or grinders.
19. Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldnāt be allowed?
No. Cannabis should be allowed in smokeable, vaporisable, topical and edible forms.
20. Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?
See below. (As previously noted, cannabis is neither a substance nor a product. It is a plant, but can be made into a value-added product.
21. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Yes. For security purposes, to prevent cannabis from falling into the hands of minors or of thieves who might on-sell to minors, cannabis retailers should store cannabis products under lock and key when not physically present on the retail premises.
22. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Yes. We suggest that such restrictions or set requirements be in line with those applicable to other psychoactive products. Additionally open discussion around public health best practices such as plain packaging must occur, in the context of whatever is publicly acceptable for tobacco and alcohol should also be acceptable for cannabis.
23. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Up in smoke. Persons disposing of cannabis must ensure that there are no minors or non-consenting adults downwind of the conflagration.
24. Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.
There should be no signage requirements, but we recommend a stylised cannabis leaf.
25. Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to regulations preventing the sale of cannabis near schools or other places where minors might otherwise tend to congregate.
26. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the regulations that currently apply to advertisements for synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to advertisements for cannabis.
27. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to Internet sales of synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to Internet sales of cannabis.
28. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to the on-site advertising of cannabinoid products also applying to the on-site advertising of cannabis.
In closing, a few words about the fees and levies proposed (in Chapter 6 of the consultation document) and also on determining the risk of harm posed by cannabis.
The ALCP envisages that many commercial suppliers of legal cannabis will be small scale suppliers. The suggested fees and levies in the consultation document would be harshly punitive in the context of “cottage industry” cannabis. They would provide a major disincentive to comply with the regulations, and drive the cultivation and supply of cannabis underground, where it now is, uncontrolled by the government. We suggest that the PSRA sets the fees or levies payable by homegrown commercial cannabis suppliers commensurate with those set by authorities in the State of Colorado.
Cannabis has been tried and tested over several millennia. Risk of harm has already been determined. We know that cannabis poses no more than a very low risk of harm to those who choose to use it.
This submission was completed by Dr. Richard Goode, Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, on its behalf.
Spread a little hate worldwide
I found reading this incredibly sad.
You know Fred Phelps. You loathe Fred Phelps. You despise everything he stands for, like his family membersā infamous protests at soldiersā funerals with their awful āGod Hates Fagsā signs. Theyāve been a symbol for many years of the religion-based animosity against the LGBT community ā to the point that theyāve been labeled a āhate groupā and even the most fundamentalist Christian groups denounce his churchās activities.
Nate Phelps … is Fredās son and a former member of Westboro Baptist Church. He left the church, and therefore the core of the family, in 1976 when he was 18 years old and has since come out as an atheist, but he still keeps in touch with some of his extended family members, many of whom have also escaped from the church.
Tonight, on Facebook, Nate posted this:
Iāve learned that my father, Fred Phelps, Sr., pastor of the āGod Hates Fagsā Westboro Baptist Church, was ex-communicated from the āchurchā back in August of 2013. He is now on the edge of death at Midland Hospice house in Topeka, Kansas.
Iām not sure how I feel about this. Terribly ironic that his devotion to his god ends this way. Destroyed by the monster he made.
I feel sad for all the hurt heās caused so many. I feel sad for those who will lose the grandfather and father they loved. And Iām bitterly angry that my family is blocking the family members who left from seeing him, and saying their good-byes.
It seems that Fred Phelps badly misconstrued the meaning of
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (KJV)
As for Phelps and fags … sure, if you truly believe that people are destined for eternal conscious torment in hell, then arguably it is a loving act to warn them as loudly as you can of their impending doom, but I don’t think Fred Phelps really understood or practised the second great commandment. Do you?
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)
I found reading his son Nate’s Facebook post incredibly sad but I find reading the reactions that news of Phelps’ impending demise has engendered even sadder. Here are some typical reactions I’ve seen on (or linked to from) Facebook.
Fuckin hate this cunt with a passion !! If he needs help gettin over that edge Holla !!!!
Someone give him a shove, and maybe stab him in the back a few times
sweet i so hope he lingers on in utter pain and has to spend the remainder of his miserable existence being hand bathed slowly by a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL 3 times a day
To the people who spew such venom, I’ve simply got to ask. What did Fred Phelps ever do to you? Did he picket your funeral? Did he personally come and pee on your rug? Seventy times seven, peeps. And don’t you think you’re getting a bit overwrought over something that’s essentially a clown act?
Hate breeds hate. Luckily, I don’t loathe Fred Phelps and never did, but so many people do. Phelps bred hate and spread more than a little hate worldwide. And I’m guessing he might even have inspired some of heavy metal band Slayer’s lyrics. š
No reciprocal hatred from me. Just a wish, in the spirit of yesterday’s St. Patrick’s day, that Phelps’s is “a quick death and an easy one.”