Category Archives: Righteous Rants

Ayn Rand, Faith, Pink Floyd, Propaganda, Psychology, Revelation, Righteous Rants, Tyranny, Zombies

Boogie Monsters. The Myth of the Internet Troll.

10 Comments

TrollHunterStill
Troll

“A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, troll may have been a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings…”
From Here>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

MARLIN-WHEN-FIRST-HOOKED
Trolling. (fishing)

“Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or Bait fish, are drawn through the water. This may be behind a moving boat, or by slowly winding the line in when fishing from a static position, or even sweeping the line from side-to-side…”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)

internet_troll_by_sagginj

Troll (internet)
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted.”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

As you folks may have divined, I have another bee under my bonnet… a sense of injustice, and fowl play.
I would like to discuss a modern trend.
On the Net it has become fashionable to label people of dissenting veiws ‘Trolls’.

This Internet definition of the term appears to combine the two other definitions… ie ‘Unwelcome cave dwellers who fish for bites.’
It is meant to be insulting, yet it has occurred to me that it is a cowardly device used mostly to avoid dialogue, and debate… Ie an Anti-reason ad hominem attack.
Thus I have never used the term in any argument… ever.
I am not saying that there are not Malicious loosers on the Net whom get off provoking others. Of course there are! Yet when you look at when and who is throwing the term about like stones, It is most often the stone thrower whom displays malice… usually because they have been taken to task about one of their most cherished delusions.
Usually they accuse their adversary of being a troll because they are painfully *On topic* , asking too rational questions and presenting too difficult a counter argument for the ‘Troll accuser’ to parry.

emotion-pon-crying-cartoon

And I see… surprise surprise … it is a term that is becoming popular in Objectivist circles.
I know my fellow blogger Richard has been labeled a troll many times by Objectivists for presenting Christian arguments for Liberty, etc.
What makes these people particularly odious is that they claim to support reason and free thinking, yet from their howls of “Troll!” “Troll!” we see that they must believe their arguments are so powerful It’s not necessary to justify them!
To understand why many Objectivists are fond of this devise all that is necessary is to look at the founder of their religion Ayn Rand.
She propagated the idea that theistic minded people are brain dead and irrational.
That they are anti-reason ie they don’t base their beliefs upon well reasoned propositions, thus the theists are supposed to shun debate!
The reality is that Theists are more than willing to confront the objectivist on the Battleground of the mind… and take pot shots at them!
Indeed many Christians feel obliged to do so… in defense of their faith… to prove just how vacuous Rands accusations are.
And it is the Objectivist whom most often spits out the anti-concept ‘Troll!’
That’s not an argument guys!
That’s a piss weak ad hominem Cop out!
Its a token of intellectual weakness.

Only the ignorant mistake such a device as being a valid retort.

Some might say it’s just a bad habit they have picked up… and this maybe so yet this being true would only go to prove my point.
Such people are using a term, *without thinking* about what that says about them… ie that they are the unthinking advocates of anti-reason.
I sincerely hope that an objectivist or two reads this and has the honesty to admit the use of this term ‘troll’ is for the birds… and take their Comrades to task about it when they use it.
I wont hold my breath because objectivists are so incapable of debate.
They prefer sycophantic Randoid monologue to real dialogue.

burning_bible

The most fanatical will delete your argument out of their thread… lest you corrupt one of their disciples.
This has happened to me many times, most recently on the facebook page Ayn Rand.
The Delete button used in such a way is not a device of reason… not an argument either guys!
If I get sick of your babblings on face book I may un-friend you to give myself some peace, yet I wont delete what you have said! I will let it stand for posterity.
You see I believe bad arguments are good in that they are self evident testimonies of stupidity! They serve my purposes just as well as well reasoned arguments, yet many Objectivists (not all) will attempt to expunge you out of existence… faking reality.
I never delete what my opponents have argued… that’s cowardly and anti-reason.
Again I hope one or two Objectivists reading this grasp the truthfulness of my argument here and work to eradicate this sort of censorship from their ranks.
That would be a positive outcome from my assertions here… for everyone.
Getting rid of these two underhanded tactics would reform and improve the integrity of anyone’s standing in the war of Ideas, including Objectivism.
And as a result better dialogue could result.
Reason would be enhanced.
Yet for Objectivists this reform would explode one of their articles of faith… that Theists are anti-reason, and I believe this delusion is too fundamental to their belief system to ever be exorcised.
How the more rational ones, whom know there is a difference between belief in God, and belief in Santa Claus continue to call themselves Objectivists I dont know.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

P.S Does Sasquatch Exist?
Maybe.
…. Obviously there is a minority of ‘monsters’ out there who enjoy prowling the Internet with nothing but ill intent…. nothing but a desire to be Flies in the ointment…. and maybe ‘Troll’ is an apt… newly minted coin… Yet this would have to be one of the most miss-used terms of Urban lingo…. as described above.
My post about the mythology of Trolls is designed to make a point.


Ayn Rand, Righteous Rants, Semantics

Thou shalt not quack

Leave a comment

quackers

The following is an op-ed by former (?) television newsreader and interviewer Lindsay Perigo, originally published online at http://www.solopassion.com/node/7876. But don’t read it there, and don’t read it here, either. Read it on Stuff Nation, where, in just a couple of days, Perigo’s piece has attracted 490 comments (last time I checked). Nice one, Linz!

Kiwi accent killing the news

I wonder how many television viewers there are like me for whom watching the six o’clock news on TVNZ or TV3 was until recently a staple of their daily routine, but who now repair to online sources for their news because the network bulletins have become unwatchable – or more precisely, unlistenable?

An army of airheads has been let loose on the airwaves who have no business being anywhere near a microphone sounding the way they do. They don’t speak, they quack.

Many newsreaders and most reporters on flagship news bulletins now sound like panicked ducks at the start of the shooting season.

Their employers, far from being alarmed by the situation and sending their uneducated charges off for remedial speech training, embrace the barbarian triumph as a victory for the authentic Kiwi accent. It is nothing of the sort.

The quacking epidemic spawned by TVNZ and TV3 is now a national plague and an international joke, an unseemly blight on a nation claiming to be civilised.

In recent times, high-profile commentators Karl du Fresne, Sir Robert Jones, Deborah Coddington and Janet Wilson (herself a former television reporter) have rung alarm bells about it.

The newsreaders’ quacking, droning, grunting and mumbling are our worst form of noise pollution.

Their “yeah-no,” “you-know,” “like, like,” “awesome,” “cool,” “wodevva,” and so on are the bane of coherent conversation. Their mangled vowels and muddied consonants make swine sound educated.

They are clueless about the distinction between “children” and “choowdren,” “Wellington” and “Wawwington,” “vulnerable” and “vunrable,” “the six o’clock news” and “the sucks o’clock news,” “showers” and “showwwwwwaz,” “known” and “knowen,” “well” and “wow,” “health” and “howth,” “New Zealand” and “New Zilland”.

The locus of their emissions is not the mouth, but the nose. Their assault on the English language is a [N]ational scandal. Theirs is not an accent; it is a disease.

In their childlike glottal stops (“thuh office”), their selective emphasis that is 100 per cent wrong (hitting conjunctions and prepositions —”Woow arroyv UN Wawwington ET sucks o’clock”), their spluttering nasality, their dim-witted droning and silly sing-song, their inability to scan ahead and phrase intelligently, our reporters are stuck at the level of an infant.

It may be that they are not truly “airheads”, but they certainly seem like airheads with such retarded speech patterns.

No, one is not demanding they speak like the Queen, but is it too much to ask that they sound like educated adults?

All that attention to how they look, and none whatsoever to how they sound! (Except when articulating Maori words. If it’s good enough for Maori, why not English?)

One of my pupils, a budding TV actor barely in his 20s, confessed that he was in deathly fear of being made to sound “posh.”

Sounding “posh,” he believed, would activate Tall Poppy Syndrome, be “uncool” and jeopardise his career.

By “posh” he evidently meant “plummy, like Sam Neill,” whose career doesn’t seem to have suffered for it.

I pointed to the impeccably Kiwi rugby commentary duo of Grant Nisbett and Tony Johnson both of whom speak clearly and well without sounding remotely “plummy.”

And what about the beautifully-spoken Sir Paul Holmes? Or Eric Young and Alistair Wilkinson on Sky?

What does it matter, the barbarians’ cheerleaders will ask, as long as we get the gist of what they’re saying? Dominion Post columnist Karl du Fresne answered this as follows:

‘‘I have heard it argued that none of this matters as long as we can understand what people are saying, to which my response is twofold. First, it’s physically painful to listen to some of these awful voices torturing the language; and second, it’s getting to the point where we can’t understand them. It’s only a matter of time before we’ll need subtitles on the TV news bulletins to explain what some female journalists and newsreaders are saying.’’

A New Zealand in which quacking is as universal as it’s threatening to become will intellectually bankrupt us. Its democracy will be a travesty of freedom as vapid voters who routinely quack inanities such as “Yeah, no, I’m like, oh my god, that’s so totally awesome” will thus mindlessly endorse the most unconscionable bribes offered by the most unscrupulous politicians.

Not only being able to watch the news again, but also freedom and civilisation themselves, are at stake.

[Reproduced without permission. Whatever.]

Keep it Metal!, Righteous Rants, Self-sacrifice, Slayer, State Rape

Mandatory Suicide

Leave a comment

Military suicides outnumber combat deaths – economy and leadership to blame

By ROBERT LAURIE – There’s a good chance that this is the most depressing statistic you’ll see all year.

According to a new Army report, as of November, 303 active-duty, Reserve and National Guard soldiers had committed suicide in 2012.  During the same period, 212 men and women in uniform were lost due to combat fatalities in Afghanistan.

It’s depressing, and disgusting.

Our military has sacrificed precious blood and treasure in Afghanistan for an ill-defined, and as such probably unwinnable, war.  They’ve been given an arbitrary withdrawal date which has nothing to do with the accomplishment of any military goal and everything to do with politics.  While they wait to leave, they’re still forced to fight, but their Commander in Chief has offered them little in the way of an objective.

When they finally do earn a ticket home, they return to a broken, barely functional, America.  The economy is in the dumper, jobs are nigh-on impossible to come by, and – as a result of their low pay – former soldiers find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult financial position. All too often, this is leading to depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

Given the lack of leadership, coupled with the reality of the U.S. fiscal situation, are we really supposed to be surprised about the ugly numbers?

The President, the government, and every American citizen should be ashamed that we’re doing so little to support the men and women who protect our nation. This is the darkest scandal of the Obama administration.

This next song is dedicated to all our friends who made it back alive from the Persian Gulf …

1 Timothy, Christian Libertarianism, Dispensationalism, Easy Listening, Faith, Freedom, Galatians, Gospel music, Hope, Islam, Jihad on Drugs™, King James Bible, Kingdom of Heaven, Libertarianz, Love, Martin Luther, Merciful Grace, Paul, Religious Toleration, Righteous Rants, Salvation, Self-sacrifice

A High Calling.

8 Comments


Christian Libertarianism to aspire to.
Easier said than done.
Take heed ye Islamophobes, Homophobes, Ye Pharisaic Legalists.

Now I am not a Righteous Man, I am full of Human imperfection and only function as a Christian trusting in God’s grace.
This understanding humbles me and makes me more Libertarian… less legalistic and judgmental of the sins of others… and more acutely aware of how vile the bigoted and persecuting spirit of Religious self righteousness and hypocrisy is.

A Few Years back… in the height of the Wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, A Zealous and otherwise Godly Christian brother ask me if I would come with him Downtown to confront the Muslims.
I could tell that his motivation was warlike… His intension was not to demonstrate Christian Grace.
I said to him that I would go with him if he could honestly say he would be acting out of Love for the Muslims, and not hate… That he desired their Salvation.
This stopped him in his tracks.
We did not go.

So many ‘Christian soldiers’ forget this most fundamental aspect of Christian action.
Some times I forget it too and need reminding.
Being kind to the Lost and Sinful is not the equivalent of condoning Evil.
It is to put Christian ideals into practice.
Christianity moves the world via Love, not Hate.
Through Humility, not Self righteousness.

Yes we must earnestly contend for the faith, yet if your actions are motivated by such festering and malignant desires as Hate, Hypocrisy, and Bigotry… you are not being a Christian at all… but the worst kind of Pharisee.

Christianity is Love in action…an appeal to reason and humanity.
It seeks to save those in distress.
It’s methods are not violence or oppression.
Indeed the true Christian will risk their own lives and stand between those whom seek to impose themselves and their victems.

True Christianity is Lighthouse in a stormy sea, not a Prison for the wicked.
It is a beacon for the lost and distressed.
A House built upon the Rock whose foundation is sure.
We have Good News!
True Christianity seeks to increase via voluntary subscription.
If you preach a gospel of Hatred and persecution, the only people you will attract into your fellowship are hateful people!
You will lead no one out from the Kingdom of darkness into the light.
Christianity is about a rebirth… a new and better way, not about feeding the worst of human prejudices and phobias.

When St Paul was confronted and saved by Christ on the Damascus road that was the end of his Pharisaic Legalism
That was the end of his spirit of Self Righteousness and Persecution.
Never again did he seek ‘Letters from the authorities’ to cast those of contrary beliefs in Jail.
Never again did he seek to stone to death sinners, unbelievers, or heretics.
He was forever changed by Gods Love, mercy, and grace towards him.
And that is what motivated all his future ministry unto death.

St Paul is our Apostle and example.
Let us follow him, as he followed Christ ie the Christ he met on the road to Damascus.

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.”
(St Paul 1Tim1vs15,16)

Freedom, Love, Motorcycles, Righteous Rants

Pretending to be Warm. Jonathan Bennett.

Leave a comment

A colder Society

All around us we see need.
Financial, emotional, and spiritual needs that is.
Now, here we get into the financial part of this.
In NZ, when we see someone clearly in need, the general view as far as I see it is “the government needs to help this person” or “this person must be able to get something from the government” and on we go feeling good about ourselves, but *we* have not really done anything.
We may even stand up for beneficiaries rights.
“Share it fair it, but don’t take a slice of my pile”
True caring for someone else is to help them directly, not to force someone else to help.
In Mexico, I saw a society that helped its poor directly, thus pulling the society closer together.
The poor would work where they could, even doing simple things, it blew my mind a bit.
The people feel responsible for the poor, which makes for a warmer society.

Jonathan Bennett
Hamilton Libertarian

^^^See Jono’s Rebel Stunt Video Here:

Alcohol, ALCP, Christian Libertarianism, Consciousness, Democracy, Faith, Freedom, Galatians, Hedonism, Heroism, Intelligent Design, Jihad on Drugs™, John, Justice, Keep it Metal!, Kingdom of Heaven, Libertarianz, Live Like It's Legal, Love, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Merciful Grace, Meta-ethics, Monism vs Dualism, Motorcycles, Necrophilia, Parables, Paul, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Physics, Pink Floyd, Propaganda, Psychology, Religious Toleration, Revelation, Revolution, Riddles, Righteous Rants, Salvation, Science, Self-sacrifice, Semantics, Slashing Bureaucracy, Slayer, Theism, There is a God!, Thomas Jefferson, Totalitarianism, Treaty of Waitangi, Venting Spleen, Vote Wikiriwhi!, Zombies

Eternal Vigilance… In Da House.

7 Comments


Communion. Christian Libertarians / Eternal Vigilance bloggers Reed, Richard, and Twikiriwhi. Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel. Auckland. 6-10-12.

It was great to meet you Reed, and to catch up again with you Richard.
HAHAHA! Check out our Halo’s!
“…And there appeared on their heads Cloven tounges… as of Fire…”
(Acts2vs3) 🙂

Righteous Rants, Venting Spleen, Vote Wikiriwhi!

Kai Mate! Kai Mate! Eat you when Your Dead! The REAL Haka of Te Rauparaha. Copyright Tim Wikiriwhi

11 Comments

Kai Mate! Kai Mate! Translated into English “Eat you when your Dead” “Eat You when your Dead!”
(Repeat for 5 minutes)
I am Copyrighting this Haka. (to cause a stir… and expose a Political charade)
Tim Wikiriwhi.

Now this is what a Pre-European War Haka was really all about!
Cannibalism!
Warriors would waive their Bare Butts at eachother to indicate that they were going to Kill, and Eat their enimies, and shit them out… render them down to shit… (and make combs and fish hooks from their bones)… Lyrics like this could be added to my Kai Mate Haka… in keping with Acient tradition and real Pre-European Maori culture.

The Haka as commonly practiced by the AllBlacks and has been copywrited by Ngati toa is a Politically correct fraud… and they are welcome to it!

I believe My Haka is in fact *The True Haka*… written by the Notorious Cannibal and Master of Maori Warfare … the ferocious Te Rauparaha!
The Modern version being nothing but a ‘Politically correct’ fraud… designed to hide the truth about Pre-European Maori life and culture… of which Cannabalism was the norm… and indeed celebrated… ritualised… and feared.


Anyone who doubts my assertions ought to read Paul Moon’s ‘This horrid practice’

…And The Maori Separatists claim European colonisation has been a disaster for Maori!
Get Real!

ACT, Atheism, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Constitution, Cosmology, Evolutionism, Faith, Francis Schaeffer, Freedom, Justice, Materialism, Religious Toleration, Righteous Rants, Theism, There is a God!, Tool, Venting Spleen

God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)

3 Comments

Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.

I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..

Read what ‘Cornell’ has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo….

Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.

Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.

Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.

Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.

Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.

Mark II, National Party, Peter Dunne, Righteous Rants, State Rape, Tax, Tyranny, Venting Spleen

Te Tari Tāke

1 Comment

I meant to vent spleen today re Peter Dunne in his capacity as Associate Minister of Health, but I didn’t get around to it. So let’s have atheist Mark Hubbard venting spleen re Peter Dunne in his capacity as Minister of Revenue instead.

I particularly liked Mark’s post below. He’s since written a couple more on the same theme here and here. Be sure to visit his blog.

Taxing Language: A Question for the Politicians – Fair: What Do You Mean?

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed – as in ‘taken out’ – from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘inequality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

Statists of all hues have taken to the word ‘fairness’ with the glee Chris The Fist Trotter has to the use of state violence, in order to make the theft that is compulsory taxation seem a little, well, fairer.

The slanderous union economist, for example, Bill (unfortunately named) Rosenberg, not letting facts get in the way of persecuting a minority, yet again, interrupted his Chardon-day, yesterday, to emote:

“… How many of the rich list pay a fair tax?”

And if Messrs Dunne and English had a blog label cloud pinned to their foreheads, ‘fairness’ would be in a huge font, over-clouding everything else. Just Google ‘fairness’, ‘tax’, and either of their names and you’ll get pages of quotes.

And so my point. I have a simple question for these three men: what does fairness, in relation to taxation, mean? Plus what is a fair amount of tax, please? How do you derive it, both in terms of the amount taken, and morally? Explain it to me, because I truly don’t understand. There is nothing in any of our taxing acts to give any guidance on this, and yet going on your constant utterances, taxpayers are, daily, being crucified on it.

In the first instance I want a generic principle, clear enough to write into tax law, which shouldn’t be too hard, given you write so much law in the fortress of legislation. And secondly, or rather, ‘but’ secondly, to test this law, for once, before foisting it on us, please interpret it, here, in relation to the below three scenarios.

Taxpayer 1:

Single man, twenty three years old, lower order contract worker putting in seventy hour weeks, earned $186,000 last year. He’s doing it hard, on himself, because with cow prices reaching $2,500 his ability to be able to buy his first herd, and so be in a financial position to propose to his girlfriend, and start a family, is looking more and more remote.

Taxpayer 2:

Family, three children at state school, both parents working to bring in a total of $60,000 per annum, only, to the household. They can’t afford a house in the current market, and with the rental squeeze due to government making it unattractive to be a private landlord, they’re having to pay $750 a week rent for a sub-standard house in Auckland, after which, when they pay for the essentials they have no pay left: indeed, all their credit cards are maxed out.

Taxpayer 3:

Family, two children, dad’s a banker, earning $200,000 per annum, mum stays home to look after their new baby, plus their first child has genetic disease meaning he’ll never be able to look after himself, so mum has taken on that job, for life. The couple have paid over half a million dollars over the last two years traveling around the world to see specialists, for operations, and so forth, and have had to re-mortgage their Fendalton home, twice, to the maximum amount possible. Husband is having to put huge hours in to make it all work financially, and with so much stress and little time together, the marriage is floundering.

So, for the statists, surely this should be easy: please write in the comments the interpretation of the tax fairness law you write for us, in relation to these individuals?

Finding it hard? Well, assuming intelligence on your behalf, you should find this impossible. And that’s even before I move to my position on tax which is not to use the word fair, but unjust. I wonder if we should ring Her Majesty for some input, given, in a story as stunning as it was alarming, the UK’s IR, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, expect school children not only to be able to define what is a fair amount of tax, but, taking their state to its Orwellian conclusion, expect them to dob in adults who don’t play fair on a playground where the biggest bully is the state itself. Politicians should at least admit there is nothing ‘fair’ about tax in any of the above instances, or period: tax is an arbitrary imposition of the state, enforced with the full draconian powers of the police state. That’s the truth. Let’s at least acknowledge the implied violence and immoral act on which our society is based, because from that, we may ultimately find a kinder way to live our lives, which would be a society that constitutionally protects the smallest of its minorities: the individual, and particularly from what is now the biggest abuser of an individual’s right to be left alone – the state.

As always, thanks, Mark, for giving your blessing to copying your content here at Eternal Vigilance.