Cars, Compulsion, Democracy, Propaganda, Regulation, Vested Interests

Slimy vested interests monger fears against reform.

Saturday 2 February 2013 Tim Leave a comment

For at least Six Months New Zealanders have been subjected to a Propaganda campaign designed to turn them against a reform which will save them Time, and Money, and will reduce their exposure to Petty tyrants.
I am referring to the Ad campaign by the MTA fronted by Popular Driving Champion Greg Murphy designed to make the government maintain the Status quo in Warrant of Fitness legislation, which is comming up for reveiw.

This Campaign is an excellent/ Blatant example of how vested interests whom profit from heavy handed regulations and Legislations work within a democracy to prevent Reforms.
Having a Popular Celebrity in your top pocket helps immensely, and is very typical of this sort of Terrorism.

Just what are these reforms and how much money are we talking about being save by New Zealanders?
“Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges yesterday announced that cars registered after January 1 that year will need just annual checks, and new cars – after undergoing initial inspections – will not require checks for three years.
He said the changes would benefit motorists by $159 million a year. At least $1.8 billion over 30 years would be saved in inspection, compliance, justice and enforcement costs.”

And the Lions share of those millions go straight into the pockets of members of the MTA Lobby!
As a fan of Greg Murphy, his support for this Cronyism is very disappointing.

The MTA could not deny this When confronted…

MTA spokesman Ian Stronach said it was undeniable that the government’s proposals would impact its revenue, but insisted its interest was safety.

BULLSHIT with bells on!!!!!!!!!!

Oh how terrible Greg! Kiwi’s are slow to get their Registration/tax stickers!”
And all this talk about the old age of our fleet is bullshit because the reforms dont effect the older vehicles!
His denial that he is not motivated by self interest is complete lies.
Murphy has a vested interest to front the MTA campaign to insure their continued financial support of his Career.
When you listen to the Bull shit he employs, it all about spooking the sheeple… with Emotive lies, and ridiculous assumptions. Not a scrap of evidence saying 7 more lives per year will be lost, the government has estimated 1.4 .

I believe contrary to these pessimistic guesses that there is every chance that the death toll will decrease because of greater impetus on self reliance and less dependence upon ‘the system’.
The dynamics of Liberty are so misunderstood.
Freedom ought not to be feared.

And there is plenty of evidence to support the proposition that reform will not be at the expense of lives!
A spokesman from the AA Mark Stockdale was reported in the NZ Herald Here saying…
“… government estimates that an annual WoF for all vehicles made after January 1, 2000, could boost deaths by 1.4 a year would be offset by a rise in police enforcement of unsafe and unwarranted vehicles, and increased education to help motorists keep their vehicles safe.
Most cars in New Zealand were tested every 6000km compared with every 19,000km in Britain or 30,000km in Germany.
“Yet when it comes to crash causation, only 2.5 per cent of crashes involved mechanical defects [and 0.4 per cent where it is the sole cause]. That’s the same as those countries with lesser frequencies.
“This suggests that not only is there no correlation between test frequency and mechanical safety, but that New Zealand’s higher road death rate is attributable to other factors.”
Yet The MTA is not the only vested interest keen to thwart Legislative reforms.

In another place he says of the MTA Lobby…
“could be seen as ”scare mongering” and was influenced by the MTA’s commercial interests.
MTA’s members include hundreds of garages which offer WOF checks, while the organization also owns Vehicle Testing New Zealand, the country’s largest WOF provider.

”Clearly they have a vested interest in the status quo, so they’re more concerned about their bottom line than they are about road safety,” Stockdale said.
…The AA is ”likely” to support the government’s plans, Stockdale said, however it would lobby for education of motorists to take more responsibility for car safety.

”There’s no evidence whatsoever from the [government’s proposals] that frequency of inspection has any bearing on vehicle safety.”

And The MTA is not the only Vested interest fighting reform.
The Revenue gathering, Power tripping Police always always bawk against any reforms and are being true to form when we read them using the exact same fear mongering tactics as the MTA to maintain the status quo.
The reforms will mean a reduction in their capacity to fine New Zealanders simply because of the date on the sticker on your windshield.

And they do the same thing when it comes to Law reform which increase liberty and reduce their powers to interfere with our lives. They are also very quick to leap at opportunities to reduce liberty and increase their powers. Eg which Drugs.
The Police revert to fear mongering every time discussion is raised about Cannabis decriminalization, and always support the introduction of New prohibitions such as have occurred against NOS, BZP and synthetic Cannabinoids.

The exceptions to this rule are so rare as to be extraordinary.

Yet to anyone with a modicum of political wisdom knows that this is to be expected from vested interests and political powers.
It’s the nature of the beast.
Though this sort of self interested activism has become the norm for the Police, it is in fact a very serious breach of the principle of the separation of powers!
The Police ought to have nothing to do with the writing or reform of any legislation as they are not impartial… they are vested interest, whom consistently lobby for their own profit and power!
This is a most vile impingement on justice!
It is crippling to the Rights and liberties of the people, and halts enlightened social progress!

Greg Murphy… “Trust Me”… Yeah Right!

It is sad to know that such patently subversive campaigns are usually successful in duping the multitudes into wanting to maintain extortion rackets, and oppression… even though the people spinning the yarns literally wear badges of Collaboration upon their chests!

I congratulate the AA for speaking out in the best interests of their members… the motoring public.
It makes I nice change from the many instances of their own complicity with tyranny when it was in their vested interest to do so… eg when they supported the government robbing drivers of their lifetime licenses… and got into the Licensing of drivers business, and when they Backed up the Auckland city council’s draconian buss lane Mega tyranny… and got into the enforcement and fines business.

Filthy Lucre!
“ The love of money is indeed the root of all evil”

“Power tends to corrupt. and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Christian Libertarianism, Faith, Freedom, Guns, King James Bible, Nanny State, Prohibition, Socialism, Theism, There is a God!, Totalitarianism, Tyranny

Christian Father defends 2nd Amendment and Liberty from Oppotunist Tyranny and Reactionary Socialism. Columbine Tragedy

Saturday 2 February 2013 Tim 1 Comment

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

“Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”

– Darrell Scott

Pillaged from Facebook page Gun Control Kills.

Freedom, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi

On the Independent Constitutional Review team

Friday 1 February 2013 Richard 2 Comments

Here are the good folk on the Independent Constitutional Review team. They’re not in on the con

The Independent Constitutional Review has been established by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research in response to the Maori Party’s plan to replace our constitution with one based on the Treaty of Waitangi to give the tribal elite supreme power in New Zealand.

but they’re on to it! Please sign the Declaration of Equality.

	David Round Independent Constitutional Review Panel Chairman Law Lecturer, Canterbury University; NZCPR Associate David Round teaches constitutional law at the University of Canterbury and is author of "Truth or Treaty? Commonsense Questions about the Treaty of Waitangi".

	Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata *Deputy Head of School of Critical Studies in Education, Auckland University.* Dr Rata is a sociologist of education specialising in the relationship between education and society. She is Editor of Pacific-Asian Education, Leader of the Knowledge and Education Research Group, a member of a European Union International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, and a former Fulbright Senior Scholar to Georgetown University, Washington D.C. She is the author of numerous books.

	Professor Martin Devlin (ONZM) Professor Emeritus, Massey University Professor Devlin has a distinguished career in the fields of education – in business, management, entrepreneurship, and corporate governance – in the private business sector, and in the NZ Army. He was appointed an Officer in the NZ Order of Merit, ONZM, in the Queens Birthday honours in 2011 for services to education. He is a fifth generation New Zealander.

	Professor James Allan Garrick Professor of Law, University of Queensland The Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, Professor Allan is a member of the Mont Perelin Society, an author and commentator. Canadian born, he practised law in Canada and at the Bar in London before teaching law in Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia. He has worked at the Cornell Law School in the US and at the Dalhousie Law School in Canada where he was the 2004 Bertha Wilson Visiting Professor in Human Rights

	Mike Butler NZCPR Associate Mike Butler is a property investor and manager. He is author of "The First Colonist — The life and times of Samuel Deighton 1821-1900", a former contract writer for the New World Encyclopedia, and he was the chief sub-editor of the Hawke’s Bay Herald-Tribune between 1986 and 1999.

	Dr Muriel Newman Convenor of the Independent Constitutional Review NZCPR Founder and Director Muriel Newman established the public policy think tank, the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. Her background is in business and education. She currently serves as a director of a childrens’ trust.

Christian Libertarianism, Compulsion, Constitution, Democracy, Freedom, Guns, Heroism, Justice, King James Bible, Revolution, Slavery, Socialism, State Rape, There is a God!, Thomas Jefferson, Totalitarianism, Tyranny

Time to Choose…. Storm Clouds Gathering. God given Rights vs Tyranny

Thursday 31 January 2013 Tim 4 Comments

Judge Napolitano: The Right to shoot Tyrants, not Deer.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/#ixzz2JWu8eli4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Apartheid, Constitution, Democracy, Justice, Revolution, Socialism, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi

State of Confusion. The Rule of Law vs The Mandate of the Majority. New Zealand’s Constitutional Crisis.

Thursday 31 January 2013 Tim 3 Comments

NZHerald letter-to-the-editor 31/1/13 posted to the facebook page ‘Constitutional Reveiw’ for discussion.

My reply….

This letter displays many ‘all too common’ errors in that it starts off quite well, yet by the time it finishes, it has undone itself.
By this I mean that the writer is correct when they say that a constitution which embodies the false (separatist) treaty principles would exacerbate our already intolerable system of inequality, yet the writer fails to appreciate that the “Government interventions via regulation” as the solution to inequality… is in fact a continuation of the status quo!… ie these interventions and regulations are fundamentally the politics of favoritism, and oppression!

The purpose of a constitution is not to empower the state or parliament to pass any legislation it deems advantageous to achieving it’s political agenda, but to limit the powers of parliament to upholding the Principles of justice while protecting individuals and minorities from Mob rule, and arbitrary power.

Lady Justice is blind to Race, Creed, sex, Wealth, etc.
She holds the balances which are true. Ie the fulcrum is so positioned as not to flavor anyone.
These are principles of justise and they determine what it means to be governed by the rule of Law as opposed to the rule of whim.
Governments which write laws in contravention of these principles are establishing injustice!
A proper Constitution forbids the generation such unjust legislation.

So many people have been duped by years of socialist democracy into mistaking the mandate of the majority as being the rule of Law.
It is no such thing. Without constitutional restraints which embody universal principles of justice (such as equality before the Law), the mandate of the majority is purely arbitrary and oboundless…. only dependent upon the whims of the biggest Mob.

It is surprising to me that so many people whom are actively attempting to End treaty separatism fail to understand that we got into the current Apartheid mess because of the unchecked mandate of the majority… not because of the treaty.

It was not the minority of Maori radicals whom created the current apartheid state, but the Predominantly/ majority Pakeha parties…. Full of socialists whom believe all the anti-western, and anti-capitalist doctrines of intervention and indigenous rights.
Having swallowed all the anti-British colonization Myths and doctrines which teach Maori suffered a holocaust at the hands of invaders and were cheated and dispossessed of their lands in violation of the treaty… They began to dance to the Beat of the Maori Radicals.
Being free to simply Ignore the principles of Equality before the Law, It was the Majority parties, National and Labour whom perpetuated the lies of the treaty principles which sever our Nation racially in twain… all in the face of the fact that the treaty granted all the peoples of New Zealand equal rights as Brittish subjects, and that Hobson declared to each chief upon signing the treaty “He Iwi’ Tahi Tatou”… “We are now one people”.

This institutionalized racism demonstrates the evils of not having an ironclad constitution which would nullify any and all laws which are unequal … even if it is the will the majority to create them!
It was New Zealand shamefully childlike refusal to cut the final cords from Mother England and establish ourselves as a republic, in spite of the fact that England had granted us self government many generations ago!
Foolishly many believed remaining in the commonwealth was a form of protection, when in reality it left us exposed to popular Machiavellianism.

It’s true to say that the separate electorol rolls have proved the evils of Racist institutions… though like their modern ‘closing the gaps’ counterparts were created by ‘socialists’ seeking to improve justice, yet ultimately it was the ‘liberty’ to ‘wheel and deal’… which allowed the Majority to pander to the separatists whom held the ballance of power.
Yet so many whom oppose the treaty graveytrain which resulted, actually fear shacking parliament… you hear them talk of ‘activist judges’. Yet Activist judges are a consequence of the status quo. ie of not having clearly defined principles enshrined in a constitution.
Those whom propagate such fears are slippery devils whom covet political power and dont want limits set for parliamentary power and the gullible and fearful believe their ruse..

I could go on to talk about why the separatists are now busy seeking to dominate all discussions about forming a New Constitution, yet I will leave that for another time.
It is suffice to say that the majority of people involved in this constitutional review… on both sides of the treaty debate, don’t understand what the Rule of Law really is, or how to differentiate it from social arbitrary power.

I support those people whom have actively spoken out about the injustice of Waitangi racism, yet there has been no real discussion of any caliber in the public arena, in respect to what is necessary to remedy it, or what a Constitution needs to embody to function as a defense against unjust law and Government power.

I mean no offence. This issue is far too important for pettiness. I offer my services to the people of New Zealand to see that this most vital of subjects get proper debate and the real issues are presented to the public mind.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

ACT, Apartheid, Libertarianz, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi

In on the Con(stitutional Advisory Panel)

Thursday 31 January 2013 Richard 5 Comments

There’s another Treaty Debate on tonight at Te Papa.

Treaty Debate Series 2013 – My Voice Counts

This year, we focus on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Participants include two prominent lawyers and a panel of young people.

Kim Hill, 2012 International Radio Personality of the Year, chairs the second Treaty Debate of 2013. This year, we invite a panel of young people to discuss the Constitutional Review, which wraps up in late 2013. They answer the question: What are the issues you care about?

The event is introduced by Claudia Orange, Te Papa’s Treaty of Waitangi scholar, and Carwyn Jones, from the New Zealand Centre for Public Law.

The Treaty Debates are organised by Te Papa in partnership with the New Zealand Centre for Public Law at Victoria University of Wellington

I plan to go along to give John Ansell some moral support, perhaps I’ll assist by holding one end of his protest banner, which reads, “Enough Treaty Treachery – Treatygate – The Conning of a Country”.

Ansell is right. The country is being conned.

There are no Treaty principles. There is no Treaty partnership. At least, not in the original Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The third article of the Treaty guaranteed to all Māori the same rights as all other British subjects. This meant one law for all.

But there is at least one member of the Constitutional Advisory Panel who (last time I checked) doesn’t understand what “one law for all” means. She says

One-law-for-all is emotive nonsense. We have all sorts of varied laws for different categories of the population, age being the best example. Will Act, under Brash, get rid of the legal age for drinking, voting and obtaining a driver’s licence?

A libertarian friend tries to correct her woolly thinking. He says

You’re not comparing like with like. The drinking age is not a violation of one law for all. It applies equally to everyone. If there were an exemption for Maori, that would violate one law for all.

and goes on to ask

Is your article intended as an apologia for preferential treatment for Maori?

Perhaps it was intended as a job application?

A few brief words on why ageism is acceptable (in the cases to which Deborah Coddington refers) and racism is not. Law is all about discrimination. Morality is all about discrimination. We treat a man who has been found guilty of murder differently from a man who has been charged with murder and acquitted. We discriminate between the two cases. As we should. Legally (and morally), the difference between a Guilty verdict and a Not Guilty verdict is relevant to how people should be treated. In the case of age vs. race, a person’s age is morally relevant (they are deemed to be too young to give informed consent) to how they should be treated. A person’s skin colour is not.

It beggars belief that Coddington was once the Deputy Leader of the Libertarianz Party.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

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

Boogie Monsters. The Myth of the Internet Troll.

Wednesday 30 January 2013 Tim 10 Comments

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

Kim Dotcom, Matthew, Morbid Angel, New Testament

Blessed are the sick

Wednesday 30 January 2013 Richard 2 Comments

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Matthew 25:34-36

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:1-4

[Hat tip: No Minister]

Christian Libertarianism, Freedom, Justice, Keep it Metal!

Eternal Vigilance is #1 for eternal vigilance!

Tuesday 29 January 2013 Richard Leave a comment

Jihad on Drugs™, Labour Party, Sheeple

Shearer off to a ‘good start’

Monday 28 January 2013 Richard Leave a comment

Yesterday, Shearer promises clear policy initiatives.

Today, Shearer defends policy-free speech.

Chris Trotter says Shearer is off to a ‘good start’. Why? Because

He was on just a few minutes ago and once again, he didn’t stumble, he didn’t stutter – this is a good start to the year.

He had a terrible first year, and he really needs to get this year rolling with an image that most people can at least not recoil from in horror and disbelief, so that’s a good start.

I don’t always follow the MSM, but when I do, I recoil in horror and disbelief.

At least one Labour MP is making the right noises about drug law reform. For that reason alone, I’d like to see a Labour-led government replace our National-led government in 2014. But I can’t see Shearer’s “good start” ending well. His flagship policy*—that of spending $30 billion of your money to build other people’s houses—was never a starter, let alone a good one. It’s in tatters.

I believe that we should be building houses – that’s not the Government building houses, it’s the private sector – obviously builders build houses. But what the Government can do is to make that happen. We can stand back and we can twiddle with the RMA, or blame councils as this government is doing, but it won’t get young Kiwis into their own home.

We have to step in and actually do something.

The government should do something. Yeah right. It’s all too awful to contemplate.

(* Labour’s KiwiBuild plan is to build 100,000 extra new houses over the next 10 years, for around $300,000 each. This, Mr Shearer says, will help young families buy their first home.)

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!