Atheism, Bogus Science, Consciousness, Cosmology, Easy Listening, Evolutionism, Faith, Heaven, Hell, Hope, Indoctrination, Keeping It Real, Liberate your Mind!, Love, Monism vs Dualism, Personal Identity, Philosophy of Mind, Psychology, Quandaries, Rationality, Revelation, Science, There is a God!, Zombies

Space Truckin: Dead for 45 minutes.

Sunday 25 May 2014 Tim 10 Comments

reaper

From >>>Here<<< A trucker in Ohio shocked hospital staff after coming back to life nearly an hour after he lost his pulse following a massive heart attack — but it’s what he claims to have seen during those tense moments that has him sure there’s an afterlife. Brian Miller, 41, was opening the lid of a container when he knew something felt wrong — he immediately called 911 and told the operator, “I’m a truck driver and I think I’m having a heart attack.” Sure enough, his main artery was completely blocked — causing what’s known as a “widow-maker” heart attack He was rushed to a local hospital where doctors managed to revive him and clear the blockage, but after regaining consciousness and feeling the pain dissipate, he developed ventricular fibrillation, when the heart starts quivering wildly and is unable to pump blood. “He had no heart rate, he had no blood pressure, he had no pulse,” said ICU nurse Emily Bishop. “I mean think about that.” Doctor’s performed “strong, hard, fast CPR” and shocked Miller four times to try to revive him, but had no luck. trrrkk

It was during that time that Miller said he slipped away into a celestial world, “The only thing I remember I started seeing the light, and started walking toward the light.”

He described walking down a flower-lined path into white light — until he came upon his step mother, who had died recently, “She was the most beautiful thing when I seen her, it was like the first day I met her, (she) looked so happy.”

Miller remembered, “She grabbed ahold of my arm and told me, ‘It’s not your time, you don’t need to be here, we’ve got to take you back you’ve got things to go and do.’”

After 45 minutes his pulse returned “out of nowhere,” Bishop said. ”His brain had no oxygen for 45 minutes, the fact that he’s up walking, talking, laughing, everything is amazing.”

Glad to be back amongst the living, Miller now says there is one thing he is sure of, “There is an afterlife and people need to believe in it, big time.”

********************

mag5

I read an article recently that suggested that as many as 20 million people had had Near Death Experiences, and that despite Materialist monists fervent denials, there has been accounts which have ‘independent’ corroboration, and also other interesting ‘anomalies’ such as blind people ‘Seeing things’… for which the term ‘Mindsight’ was coined.
These experiences suggest that consciousness, thought, memory, etc carry on after Zero brain activity…. which supports the Dualistic theory of Body and soul… thwarting Monism which insists all our personality and consciousness is generated by the brain.

I find the article is interesting because it articulates my own scepticism about Materialist scepticism for Spiritual realities.

The truckie story above is a classic example of *What really happens at death* … ALOT!…. which Materialists have to reduce down to illusion.

I actually have a Jewish friend who died in a Car crash… was dead for several hours… and revived.
She reported seeing Jesus (which was a surprise… being a Jew), and meeting her Gand Father who said Nanna will be ‘here soon’.
She reported all this to her parents, and within a few weeks… Nanna had passed away.
None of this is explicable via notions of ‘hallucinations of a dying brain… loss of oxygen, etc’… Monitors detect Zero brain activity, and when people temporarily black out from lack of Oxygen they experience confusion and or memory loss, not Lucidity of thought… not vivid memory… and their black outs are not *Life altering*…. *perspective Game changers*…. which is a very common result of Near death experiences.
Objectively speaking, these experiences ought not to be written off as delusion simply because they don’t fit well with the common assumptions of the Material paradigm.
The Free thinker will be open to consider greater possibilities…. even if the evidence demands a person to forsake their cherished assertions.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Memories of Peter Dunne

Saturday 24 May 2014 Richard 2 Comments

Wednesday night last week I was at the Backbencher pub on Molesworth Street, across the road from Parliament Buildings, for the filming of the first episode of the 2014 season of Back Benches.

Back Benches is a political panel discussion show. Hosted by Wallace Chapman and Damien Grant, it airs on Prime TV 10:30 pm Wednesday evenings, having been filmed earlier in the evening. It’s a great show. (You can watch it here.)

Last week’s political panel featured Labour MP Trevor Mallard, National MP Mark Mitchell, Green MP Jan Logie … and Peter Dunne. Topics included cannabis law reform … and animal testing.

Animal testing has been a hot topic in New Zealand in the last couple of years because of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The Psychoactive Substances Act, which became law in July last year, made provision for the testing of new psychoactive substances on animals. Peter Dunne, the National government’s Associate Health Minister, was the bill’s main architect and front man.

Earlier this month, in a surprise (to some) move, Parliament enacted the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill. The amendment, drafted by Peter Dunne himself, rules out the prospect of any testing of psychoactive substances on animals being incentivised by the government. This is very good news.

Section 12 replaced (Duty of advisory committee relating to use of animals when evaluating psychoactive products)
Replace section 12 with:
“12 Advisory committee not to have regard to results of trials involving animals
“(1) In performing the function set out in section 11(2)(a), the advisory committee must not have regard to the results of a trial that involves the use of an animal.
“(2) However, the advisory committee may have regard to the results of a trial undertaken overseas that involves the use of an animal if the advisory committee considers that the trial shows that the psychoactive product would pose more than a low risk of harm to individuals using the product.”

Wednesday night last week, Peter Dunne made the following remarks.

Can I just say two things.

I’m in favour of testing for medicinal purposes on low down the stratum [sic] sets of animals.

With regard to psychoactive substances I ruled dogs and that level out as long ago as November 2012. They were never, ever in the frame. The debate subsequently was about rodents and more latterly rabbits …

Well, that’s not how I remember it. I remember a headline from December 2012 which told a very different story.

Last year hundreds marched against animal testing. With their beagles. It’s not how they remember it, either.

Peter Dunne is a sick puppy.

Is still my opinion.

But how do we best square what Peter Dunne said last week with what he apparently said and thought back in December 2012?

Let’s canvas the possibilities.

1. The Sunday Star Times misreported.

2. Peter Dunne misspoke.

3. Peter Dunne is in denial about what he said.

4. Peter Dunne is trying to rewrite history.

Politicians lie. We know this because their lips move. Peter Dunne is a consummate politician. So I’m rooting for option (4). Otherwise, it’s hard to explain why Dunne is so specific about the date. “I ruled dogs out as long ago as November 2012.” Except that he didn’t.

Here’s what I think really happened. I think Peter Dunne lacks empathy. Otherwise, how to explain this? And he simply forgot to remember that normal people consider the gratuitous poisoning and killing of household pets to be morally unacceptable.

Addiction, Alcohol, ALCP, Alternative Medicines and Treatments, Beer, Break on through to the other side, Cannabis, Christian Libertarianism, Democracy, Easy Listening, Freedom, Hedonism, Hypocrites, Jihad on Drugs™, Justice, Keeping It Real, Liberate your Mind!, Libertarianz, Live Like It's Legal, Nanny State, Prohibition, Propaganda, Psychoactive Substances Act, Self reliance, Self-ownership, Slavery, Socialism, State Rape, Tax, Totalitarianism, Uncategorized, Zombies

Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism. Socialist pragmatism vs Libertarian Idealism

Friday 23 May 2014 Tim 20 Comments

quote-Aristotle-plato-is-dear-to-me-but-dearer-102583

It has been with great sadness that over the past year I have witnessed my fellow Libertarian Blogger Richard Goode change tack and sail off course, and now become an apologyst for Socialist Statism.

This has been evidenced by his entire behaviour in relation to the Psychoactive Substances Act, and particular with regards to Synthetic Cannabis.

To make my point I refer you to all his Blog posts on this subject in which he consistently demonstrates that he believes all the Negative hype about the dangers of Synthetics… which is in my view incredulous considering the history of Prohibition, and it’s reliance on Lies and phobia about drug use, as supposed vindication for the Governments perpetration of a highly oppressive war upon it’s own citizens.

While he calls himself a Libertarian, He has in reality swallowed the Socialist lie that Harm Minimisation is a legitimate function of Government and has attempted to formulate an argument for this >>>Here<<<, yet it is a tragic testimony to his having put the Cart before the horse. While Libertarianism has many pragmatic advantages over Socialist tyranny, Libertarianism is firstly an Individualist Ideology.... a philosophy which embodies clear principles of Law and Justice which protects the sovereignty of Individuals from tyrannical Government, and the pragmatic advantages for society... to the degree that there are any... are merely the By-product which flows from these principles. The Free society is a far more Humane and enlightened civilisation than socialism, and the type of Self reliant- self responsible, and charitable citizenry it fosters, and the peaceful Social interaction which spontaneously generates in a coexistence free of political coercion and advantage... are all extremely preferable ... pragmatically speaking.... yet to mistake these benefits as being the vindication for it's principles is utterly false. The Vindication for Libertarianism is in it's *Justice* for Individuals, and it's defence of the Individual's self-ownership, and it's Principled limits to political power... whether the will of a Monarch, or 'The mandate of the Majority'...the will of the largest Mob. Ie Libertarianism protects Individuals, minorities, and even Majorities, from Social arbitrary Law. That is what vindicates Libertarianism... not its pragmatic social advantages, and certainly not any idea of 'Harm minimisation' for the individual. Libertarians ought to have social concern for others, yet that is an utterly foreign principle to Libertarian ideology... It is in fact a definitive *Socialist* political lever, and pseudo-justification for Political intervention...and it is here where my friend has gone so far astray... Libertarianism embodies voluntary community action. Believe me when I say that I sympathise which how he was lured down this road... It was because the Anti-Prohibitionist movement (in particular Cannabis Law reformers) whom were never Libertarians began to argue for an end to prohibition... not on the basis of Individual rights, but on the basis that Cannabis was safer than alcohol. This was the socialist 'Harm minimisation' Doctrine... which sought to win over the socialist parliament by convincing a big enough mob that by allowing legal cannabis, they would be helping to reduce the Evils of Alcoholism which have been exacerbated by its monopolistic Legal Status. These arguments are thoroughly aimed at a socialist pragmatic mentality which prevails both within New Zealand's parliament, and in our society as a whole. It is a Utilitarian mentality which has abandoned all ideological principles of justice in pursuit of 'The Greatest Happiness'. Under this philosophy the Government can do whatever it pleases with individuals as long as it can convince a majority, that it's actions are conducive to the collective well being of society as a whole. Thus Individuals have become the property 'of society'. Society may overstep a persons individual liberty and self-responsibility either under the pretence of protecting the Hapless individual from himself, or the pretence of minimizing 'problems' that individual choices can have upon Society at large... esp Financial strains upon 'social services' which are run by the government and funded collectively via taxation. Druggies are deemed to be an inexcusable burden upon the system. pink judge

It is under these pretences that modern Socialist judges have no compunction against Jailing peaceful old Pot smokers whom refuse to submit to the Political will of Nanny state.
*Jail is deemed to be for their own good, and the Good of society as a whole*

They believe the ruinous effects upon an individuals life of incarceration are in fact preferable to ‘allowing him’ to continue in his drug use, and that society is safer while drugs are actively being suppressed by the Police.
*Freedom is dangerous* *Nanna Knows Best* *Etc*.

Now it is not the place here and now for me to argue why this whole socialist perspective is utter tyrannical, or why Libertarianism denies it is the proper duties of government to provide social services like public health care.
It ought to be enough to point out how utterly at variance with Libertarianism, this whole approach to ending Cannabis prohibition is.

I shall proceed to explain how my Brother Blogger took his wrong turn and has now wandered so far off track that he has crossed the line and is no longer worthy of the Name *Libertarian*.
My explanation is not written to vilify, but to show how easily this deviation occurred.

Not only do I sympathise with my fellow blogger, but hope that after contemplating what I have written that he will correct his course back over to the Libertarian side.

Many years ago many Kiwi Libertarians, including myself, as members of the Late Great yet struggling Libertarianz party, were supportive of a proposal written by Richard Goode for having a Transitional policy for Drug Law reform, which was accepted because it provided a rational pathway of least resistance to ending the war on drugs.

Our previous policy of simply legalising all drugs was too much for the voting public to swallow and had absolutely no hope of ever being adopted in totality, and so the new proposal presented to the voting public and parliament, was that the War be de-escalated starting with de-criminalising the softer drugs first, and then as fears were alleviated by having legal highs, that support could then be gained for further reforms, with ultimate end being an absolute end to the war on drugs.

elephant_one_bite

We would devour the Prohibition elephant one bite at a time… leaving the boniest portions till last.
And what defined ‘soft drugs’ was their perceived ‘safer than alcohol’ status.

The virtue of this policy was that it was idealistic, yet also realistic as means to our ultimate end because it was far more popular with the People… there was already support for Cannabis Law reform and our definition of cannabis as a ‘softer drug than alcohol’ was met with great enthusiasm from the Socialist faction of Cannabis Law reform movement whom are by far the greatest majority in the movement.

I have no doubt that Richard ‘liberated’ his definition for ‘soft drugs’ for the Libertarianz party transitional drug policy directly from the Socialists.

Richard’s policy was genius, as it unified Idealism with pragmatical realism, and popularity.
He ought to be proud of it.

Unfortunately though, in the years that have since past, and with the de-registration of the Libertarianz party, and Richard joining and now representing the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, which is still predominantly a Socialist Party, He has obviously lost his Libertarian bearings.

He has forgotten that The Libertarians supported his transitional policy because of it’s progression of Justice… not because it’s starting point of legalising softer drugs was in any way supposes Libertarians endorse the socialist idea that Governments ought to concern themselves with ‘harm reduction’.

It is only in the light of these sorts of consideration that as Libertarian I had anything good to say about the Psychoactive substances act.

To the degree that it did allow a special dispensation to some products to be legally available, and also allowed a convoluted means (in theory) for other products to eventually make it to Market… having run the ‘regulation gauntlet’, it was supposed to be an improvement on the ‘Ban everything as they appear’ prohibition-ism which was the prevailing ‘socialist wisdom’ at the beginning of the rise of synthetic dugs which are now being manufactured to bypass existing prohibitions.

The thing was that Richard had now utterly lost all sight of what Libertarianism is about, and swallowed the socialist ‘Harm minimisation’ pill that he actually condemned the PSA for being too Libertarian!
*He was thoroughly in the Socialist Camp that it is the governments duty to decide what Citizens are allowed to ingest*

He was outraged that Peter Dunne was not acting Nanny Statist enough… because in his mind it was committing a crime by allowing dangerous and untested Synthetic Cannabis to be legally sold!

He relentlessly fanned the fires of Anti-Synthetic Cannabis hysteria… much to the joy of many of his Pro-cannabis Socialist mates, and condemned the Legal highs industry as evil profiteers at the expense of Hapless sheeple.

He told them to voluntarily remove their products, and castigated them for not heeding him… saying that a backlash was growing which would result in their products being banned.
I said that I didn’t think that would happen, yet I was wrong on that count… and I am sure he experienced euphoria when…. being an election year… and with all the Media sensationalism surrounding the Anti-legal high lobby that via the ensuing shysterism/ party politicking of the powers that be.. that the Libertarian portions of the Act got blotted out, and the means by which products could be deemed safe and thereby legalised… was virtually shut.

(Read my post on this >>>Here<<<) This was a leap backwards in the struggle to End Drug prohibition as it re-invigorated Prohibitionism. The world was watching and prohibitionists everywhere celebrated. Having Legal highs in New Zealand... they say... proved to be a failure. discoredia-the-evil-dead-drugs-raves-and-othe-L-MthvyL

Richard and his friend Blogger Mark Hubbard now dwell on the Dark side.
They ignore studies which suggest synthetic cannabis is relatively safe, and instead invoke terror by calling it ‘Legal Heroin’ ‘like P’…. etc… as if Libertarians support the War on Heroin and Meth!

Mark blames the Government for all the supposed troubles experienced by Legal high users… as if they have no personal responsibility.

*BOGUS!*

I have no problem with Libertarians believing certain drugs to be dangerous… even if they are getting their information from patently Dubious sources.
Of course there can be dangers involved in taking drugs.
Alcohol is dangerous… yet to say their Dangerous nature justifies Prohibitions is patently Un-libertarian and socialist!
The philosophical war they have declared is a Socialist Jihad against Individual Rights and Liberties!

call nanana

Richard’s last blog post attempts to be an argument for the government socialist interventions
He by passes the fundamental Libertarian principles which clearly define and articulate the legitimate function of government as being strictly limited to defending Rights and Liberties of individuals, and instead substitutes that with his bogus Pragmatist doctrine of ‘Harm minimisation’ which is pure Utilitarian Socialism … not Libertarianism.
To say that he is going ‘Back to basics’ could not be further from the truth

He attempts to smoke you readers by saying harm minimisation is a legitimate concern of Government with the bogus rationalisation that preventing ‘itself’ from putting people in Jail… which is harmful … as being a form of ‘Harm minimisation’ when in reality the principles involved are no such thing!
He has stitched up a sophistry which is in complete contradiction to Libertarian limited government.

The Legal and just principles against unjust imprisonment are keeping constitutional restraints forbidding the State from stepping outside it’s legitimate and just functions and encroaching upon our legitimate liberties, and violating our Rights which it has been instituted to protect!

This is black and white… lines not to crossed…. spheres of liberty, personal ethics, the pursuit of happiness, and self-responsibility… not to be encroached upon… not even for ‘harm minimisation’.

There are Powers never to be usurped… and they are not contingent upon whether or not Nanny State’s dictates are harmful or beneficial to either society or Individuals themselves.

It could very well be that some Laws could prevent idiots from harming themselves… yet to the Libertarian… that is no justification for passing oppressive laws…. which treat everyone like idiots… and gives the State paternalistic powers.
Harm minimisation is an endorsement of social interventions, not Libertarian self- ownership and responsibility.

Libertarians say that to allow the Government to legislate to protect people from themselves is to people the world with Fools.

Read my Blog post on this >>>Here<<< Richard... the Philosopher... no doubt assumes the Libertarian principle of having an arbitrary demarcation for being of Age of 'Adult consent and culpability' (in regards to being allowed to purchase alcohol without Parental permission) as being a form of 'Regulation' and 'Supply control'... which is again Bullshit. By that way of thinking All Laws are 'Regulations'... and that therefore the only 'Free market' can exist is under Anarchy. That R18 Principle of Law is necessary in regards to Legal parental rights and responsibilities, and custodianship , yet a young person ought to be able to apply for Adult Status earlier. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. It recognises a limited legitimate sphere for Government, yet these do not include 'Licensing products'... like alcohol, FDA approval, or Taxes, or 'Harm minimisation' etc. The only 'License' Libertarians would support is an R18 age restriction on the purchase and sale of liquor, etc with those whom violate this condition being criminally liable and negate their right to sell. If parents allow their own kids to enjoy alcohol, Pot, etc at a younger age, that is their own business. If Parents want to try alternative treatments on their sick infant children such as Cannabis... they have that fundamental right. I brew some booze yet I also buy Alcohol, and pay taxes on it. It does not mean I support the Status quo.... yet I still believe it is better... more Libertarian than outright prohibition. The same with proposals to 'Educate', 'Tax', and 'Regulate' Cannabis. Again I dont say that is the Libertarian Objective, yet it is better than current Prohibition. Richard and Mark have utterly abandoned Libertarianism and become Socialist Statist Prohibitionists. You have abandoned principles of Justice in favour of Socialist Utilitarian Pragmatism. To recover yourselves and to restore yourselves into the Libertarian fold is simple, and it does not require you to drop your opinion about the Safety of Synthetic Cannabis, or mean you must cease arguing that you think Real cannabis is safer. All it requires you to do is to stop arguing that 'Harm minimisation' is a legitimate concern of governments, and desist from supporting any prohibitions on drugs. If on the other hand you think the War on P, on H, and on Synthetics is justifiable, and legitimate, will them please desist from calling yourselves Libertarians. small gold guy_0

It has only been a few weeks since Synthetic cannabis was taken off the shelves, and yet My InLaws reported seeing a bunch of people sniffing glue in the Park.
So much for Harm reduction!

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

Freedom, Jihad on Drugs™, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation

Back to basics

Friday 23 May 2014 Richard 9 Comments

This meme has been doing the rounds of drug law reform social networks. Regular readers may have seen it once or twice already.

In this post I want to consider the message that this meme is sending to young people. And what this meme means for drug law reformers in general and for libertarians in particular.

Drugs can ruin your life

For sure. Drugs can, and do, harm people. Drug harms can be measured. See, for example, the Nutt scale. And drug harms can be prevented.

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

One way to prevent drug harms is to prevent people from taking drugs. One way to prevent people from taking drugs is to send them to jail. But being sent to jail ruins your life.

The harms caused by criminalising drug use can also be measured and it turns out that the cure is worse than the disease. Prohibition doesn’t work. The War on Drugs™ is an expensive, epic failure. The harms caused by criminalising drugs outweigh and/or add to and exacerbate the harms caused by the drugs themselves.

So say the majority of drug law reformers. In the interests of harm minimisation, we must abandon the failed policy of prohibition and try a new approach to preventing drug harms. The three pillars of harm minimisation are demand reduction, supply control and problem limitation. So we must educate (to reduce demand), regulate (to control supply) and treat (to limit problems).

But wait! Who’s being forced to pay for all this harm minimisation? Asks the libertarian. Since when was harm minimisation a proper role of government? The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves.

Drugs can ruin your life

The stock libertarian response is, if you’re worried that drugs can ruin your life, don’t take them. In other words, so what?

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

It’s the bottom bit of the message that ought to make libertarians sit up and take notice. The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves, and certainly not to violate our rights by sending us to jail! Governments can and do catch people with drugs, send them to jail and ruin their lives. Governments harm people by doing that. Governments shouldn’t harm people. So it turns out that harm minimisation is a proper role of government, after all.

I briefly looked at the types of harms governments should try to minimise in a previous post.

The overarching goal of the [New Zealand government’s National Drug] Policy, to prevent and reduce the harms that are linked to drug use, is a noble one. However, we must distinguish between three main kinds of drug-related harms

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

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

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

Harm minimisation is a proper role of government, but only the minimisation of certain harms and not others. Minimising the harms we inflict upon ourselves is not the legitimate business of the state. Minimising the harms the state inflicts on its own citizens is very much the legitimate business of the state. Governments ought to be forced to take the Hippocratic Oath! Above all, do no harm.

Last year, the New Zealand government did what seemed to be a very libertarian thing. It stood back and let us get on with the business of harming ourselves by smoking untested, unsafe, novel synthetic cannabinoids. This month, the New Zealand government apparently reverted to its authoritarian ways and banned the sale and use of all synthetic cannabinoids until further notice.

All is not as it seems. By allowing us to harm ourselves, the government was inflicting harm on us!

How so? What I just said is bound to sound paradoxical, or even duplicitous, unless you stand back and get the bigger picture. In my previous post, syndicated from Life Behind The IRon Drape, Mark Hubbard stands back and gets the bigger picture.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point …

Context is important. He who would trade safely implemented and lasting drug law reform for some temporary liberty, deserves neither. Sometimes, a little freedom is a dangerous thing.

I’m given to understand that this revised meme is what most of my fellow drug law reform activists are fighting for. Well, being sent to rehab is better than being sent to jail, isn’t it? I suppose so.

Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Libertopia any more.

Footnote.

The police officer in the picture is Anthony DiPonzio of the Rochester Police Department in New York. DiPonzios is both a perpetrator and a victim in the War on Drugs™. In 2009

DiPonzio, 23, was shot in the back of the head on a city street after questioning a few people about alleged drug activity on Saturday, Jan. 31. Tyquan Rivera, 14, of 65 Dayton St., Rochester, turned himself in to Rochester police Tuesday, Feb. 3. He will be tried as a juvenile and could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

“We are pleased to share that officer DiPonzio continues to make significant progress in recovering from his serious wound. He is speaking this morning, and we are very pleased with his notably improving condition, which is far ahead of where we expected him to be at this point.”

“He has made such significant progress that – based on his current condition – we anticipate he will be able to transfer from Rochester General Hospital to Unity Health System’s Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit early next week.”

Freedom, Immigration, Justice

Immigration is dependent on ownership

Wednesday 21 May 2014 reed 15 Comments

If an island is owned by one person then just immigration to that island is dependent on the will of the owner.

If a group of islands is owned by one person then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owner.

If a group of islands is owned by a group of people then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owners.

New Zealand is a group of islands owned by a group of people – Just immigration to New Zealand is dependent on the will of the owners.

Immigration is dependent on ownership.
Freedom is only relevant if it is the owners’ will (or duty).

Let’s see where this goes…

Mark II, National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

Wednesday 21 May 2014 Richard 4 Comments

It’s a great relief to me that at least one of my libertarian friends gets it.

This compelling piece on the diabolical Psychoactive Substances Act by atheist blogger and fellow freedom fighter Mark Hubbard is so good, I’m syndicating it.

Be sure to check out more of Mark’s blog. I wish I had more time to read his posts.

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

I wish I had more time to write this post.

Search this blog for the Psychoactive Substances Bill, animal welfare, or animal testing, and you’ll see around the time that 119 of New Zealand’s 120 members of Parliament were enacting infamy, their egos driving them for a world first, I was warning them of the inhumanity they were about to force on us. Although now that the results of legalising synthetic, toxic poison – on the heinous principle of animal testing for our human recreation- has been in place for less than a year, even I am left breathless at the devastation and misery that has been caused.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point, heroin, which is what I’m calling it from now on, because that’s what this drek is: these MP’s have been hiding behind the euphemisms legal high and synthetic cannabis for too long. They legalised a hardcore, psychosis forming, addictive drug while keeping the harmless option criminalised.

And then much worse. Because it’s election year, and Campbell Live has been exposing the ruined lives that have been addicted to legal heroin, Labour decided it would be a vote catcher to announce a policy of banning it. Not to be outdone, merely minutes before Labour announcing its ban yesterday, the instigator of legal heroin, Peter Dunne, whose son, remember, is the foremost legal representative to the legal heroin industry, in a knee-jerk political action announced his own ban of all 41 legal brands of heroin currently on sale, from two weeks hence.

Now, hands up those who understand addiction, who believe that these new government created addicts are going to miraculously stop taking their heroin fix in two weeks? Of course they’re not: they can’t. No what Dunne has done with the ill-thought out ban, as the solution to his incompetent, ill-thought out legislation, is deliver a brand new customer base to organised crime; the violent gangs whom will happily take up supply at some magnitude of the current price, meaning a burglary crime wave is also headed our way. (Perhaps young James Dunne better line up his legal aide application.)

Has there been a better example of the evil transacted by government in New Zealand in our recent history? Noting an important point made by one tweeter that opposition to the Psychoactive Substances Act, is still consistent with the belief I hold that prohibition does not work: it’s just that in this case government policy actually forced users to take the most harmful of drugs, by keeping harmless cannabis criminalised. As I write in too many of my posts; you can’t make this stuff up. Thousands of lives ruined chasing world first law-making – that is, one man’s ego – which is a disaster, and yet still, despite the evidence world-wide, including the states in the US seemingly experiencing no problems with cannabis legalisation, not a single MP in New Zealand talking of legalising non-toxic, non-addictive cannabis, to perhaps keep some of these new heroin addicts out of the clutches of the gangs while the ban is on. (Or forget the PSA, at the very least, to look at putting cannabis into hospitals to help manage the side-affects of cancer treatments, and many other of the medicinal uses cannabis has.)

I revise my former oft used epigraph by saying we’re something a lot worse than a kindy of a country.

There are some questions I will quickly recite to end, but first another principled point. This post is all about ethics, but the MSM and majority of the political blogs will cynically write this up as part of the political game: who announced the ban first, how will it affect election chances et al. Most, other than John Campbell – and good on you John – will forget the addicts. This blog is probably considered by most as a political blog, which is ironic, as I hate politics, and politicians who are taking us all at pace from the free, civilised society, to their brave new world of politick, which is a slave pit where the masses are kept chilled with legal heroin. Aldous Huxley got it right. Was Peter Dunne concerned with the addicts here? Hell no, his reply to Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway on that party’s proposed bill:

@IainLG @caffeine_addict @manstaneditor and do you really think the government would have given you a victory on this?— Peter Dunne (@PeterDunneMP) April 27, 2014

There’s no victory here Peter, we’re all losers. If there is one bit of justice out of this it will be your disappearance after this year’s general election.

Questions for the 119 MPs:

Dunne has stated all current 41 heroins will be banned until they pass the test of ‘low or no risk’: however as the legal heroin industry pointed out last night in a tweet, there are still no guidelines set out by our inept law makers as to what constitutes low or no risk. So what is this criteria? And after that, show factually why the plant cannabis does not comply, because I’m willing to bet it does, and you won’t need to test a single animal for that, just look at cannabis use by humans over the last 6,000 years, with not one recorded death from toxicity.

I originally wrote on this Act when in bill form from the point of view of the cruel animal testing it proposed, which via a series of nationwide protests, Kiwis thankfully showed themselves to be implacably against, to the extent that to this stage no animals have been tortured for our recreation under the Psychoactive Substances Act. However in the last tweet from Mojo Mathers to myself, she stated that the expert advisory panel set up to look at the testing of this heroin was still stuck on – the barbarity – of using animals for reproductive testing, thus animal testing is still on the laboratory table.

I suspect there will now be huge pressure to use animal testing as a way to get one of these heroin brands back into the shops, and the economics of this has been changed. Formerly the cost of testing was prohibitive, however that cost is now tempered by the carrot of getting a single heroin to market, and so a legal monopoly.

Will every one of the infamous 119 MP’s who voted for this monstrosity, please put on record if you are going to allow a single animal to be harmed under the Psychoactive Substances Act. Don’t you worry responding Peter Dunne: I’ve realised via this you’re a vainglorious, ego driven man who couldn’t care less about an animal’s welfare (or a human’s as it has ended up.)

Signing off in my usual disgust.

James

What is your life?

Tuesday 20 May 2014 Richard 2 Comments

1 Corinthians, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Revelation

What is real?

Tuesday 20 May 2014 Richard Leave a comment

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (NIV)

In what sense is the world “real”? What are we asking, when we ask that question?

Anna Salamon doesn’t know. I don’t know. Perhaps Jordan Peterson knows.

I’m going to talk to you today about a different way of looking at what real is.

It’s not easy to figure out what real is because we don’t really have infinite knowledge and so we’re always making some sets of presuppositions about what’s most real.

It really matters what you assume is most real because you base the decisions that you make, that run the entire course of your life, on those assumptions, whether you recognise it or not. And if you get the assumptions wrong, or even if you leave them incomplete, you’re going to pay a big price for it.

Bogus Science, Cars, Dinosaurs, Economic Ruin, Global Warming, Liberate your Mind!, Motorcycles, Physics, Propaganda, Slavery, Socialism, State Rape, Trucks, Truth, Tyranny, Vans, Zombies

Swallowing Brontosauri: The great fossil fuel delusion.

Monday 19 May 2014 Tim 11 Comments

gas

^^^^ Hahahaha…. on whom is the Joke really?

Many years ago I herd a very interesting theory, which immediately struck a chord.
Simply put … It made much more sense than the common assumptions.
What is un-questioningly accepted as Scientific Fact and ‘Common wisdom’ is patently absurd.

What am I on about?
Oil and Gas are falsely assumed to be a fossil fuels…. the reality is *there are no Fossil Fuels!*
They are all simply naturally occurring accumulations of Organic compounds of which the Earth is made.

The idea that Oil and gas reserves are the remains of Prehistoric Creatures and vegetation which were somehow buried in massive deposits before decomposition is quite frankly Ridiculous!

fossil-fuels-graph

Apart from the fact that you can make make oil, gas, and coal via industrial processes from Wood, etc,
the delusion that Oil and Gas are ‘fossil fuels’ was argued from the fact that oil samples under a microscope revealed ‘cellular’ materials.
Yet it later turned out that these Biological ‘bits and pieces’ are not the remnants of Dinosaurs and trees (as supposed, and taught to the Masses) but are the remnants of Bacteria which have since been discovered to live in the Oil deep down below the surface of the Earth.

What is known as Earth’s ‘Biosphere’ … the regions of which Living organisms may be found extends from deep within the Earth itself right up into High altitudes of the atmosphere.
Thermopiles have been found living as deep as 5km underground.

And recent discoveries in Space exploration are now rendering the Fossil fuel hypothesis even more untenable.
Surely the Lie cannot continue much longer… can it???

Just recently vast quantities of liquid “hydrocarbons’ have been discovered in places like Saturn’s moon Titan … and because there have never existed living creatures on theses moons…. it proves that Hydrocarbons form in abundance within our solar system via other natural processes… On Earth carbon is converted internally under heat and pressure etc.
On Titan, it is the cold which liquefies the naturally abundant Gases and ‘Oils’ rain from the sky and form lakes, etc.
All it takes is the right conditions… no Dinosaurs… no forests required.

Suspicion that Oil was not a Fossil fuel has been suspected for Decades… even longer, yet the belief persisted and is perpetuated because it suits the Oil companies to sell it at a premium, and to the Doomsday Greenies whom cry out that ‘fossil fuels’ are a Non-renewable resource that are being Rapaciously consumed… that there is an Oil crisis ahead… and so Capitalism must be stopped, and that heavy handed State control of these ‘limited Resources’ was essential to prevent the eminent ‘Dooms Day’ … The collapse of modern civilisation and Technology…. and a reversion back into the dark age.

These are the same freaks whom also push ‘Climate change’ hysteria…. which also according to them is fast bringing Global catastrophe…. and so…. ‘surprise surprise’… requires the State to seize control of all the worlds resources and restrain Human liberty.
Putting an end to the assumed Decadence of owning your own Gas guzzers with Ginormous ‘Carbon footprints’… etc

fossil-fuels-skeleton-hand1

Yet there is no crisis (At least not from Green house gasses or a shortage of Oil!)… no need to surrender the world to a Global Fascist/Commy State….alias Leviathan.

Oil and Gas are constantly being made within the Earth’s crust… out of the Earth itself.
Drained reservoirs refill.
The Idea that Oil and Gas are ‘fossil fuels is one of the great myths of our age.
It demonstrates Humanities infinite capacity to swallow Brontosaurus sized delusions and politically manufactured pseudo-science.
Yet because the Fossil fuel myth it is so utterly believed by the great bulk of humanity, I know that not many people reading this will believe me.
They will say I’m Nuts.
How dare I question the orthodox view?
Heretic!
🙂

I on the other hand am wondering how long will these Jurassic delusions continue?

Hitler has been sited as saying… “the Bigger the Lie, the more people will believe it.”

Another saying is…
‘… a person is more likely to continue to believe a lie he has herd a thousand times rather than the truth he has herd only once’.

I wonder what sort of Comments this Blog post will elicit
🙂

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Hot_Rod_Burnout_by_dirkbehlau

Black Sabbath, Break on through to the other side, Deep Purple, Elvis Has Left The Building, Heaven, Hedonism, Hell, Love

Rock legend and good guy Glenn Hughes pays his respects at Ronnie James Dio 4th year memorial.

Saturday 17 May 2014 Tim 5 Comments

Horns Up Rocks Iron Maiden Dio Holy Diver

Yesterday in New Zealand is today in the US, and so it was the 4th anniversary of Dio’s death.
His friend and Rock Superstar Glenn Hughes of both Deep Purple and Black Sabbath fame posted a pic (at bottom) on his facebook page of his attendance at Dio’s memorial.

As a long time Fan of both Dio and Hughes I am grateful to Glenn for bringing this date back to my mind… Individual lives matter….

Glenn Hughes is not only a Rock legend, but also a self confessed Reformed arsehole.
He admits that in his younger days he was a Drunken arrogant prick… yet with Age he has also gained in wisdom and humanity, and now is a super Nice guy… who only wants to spread love and peace.

caljam1

Facebook is truly a modern wonder as it allows the whole world to connect in a very cool and intimate way.
Glenn takes the trouble to share his daily doings, and what is even more amazing is the fact that he actually responds directly to many of his fans questions.
I had a Buzz one day when I asked him on FB if he had known Rory Gallagher, to which he responded… “Yes. He was a Dear Friend”.
Howz That for Cool!???
I got to chat for 5 seconds with one of my most revered Rockers.
Cheers FaceBook!

I personally am in awe of Hughes contributions to Deep Purple, believing Him to be their greatest vocalist… which is really saying something considering he beats legends David Coverdale and Ian Gillan.

And Hughes is still working Professionally in his New Band California Breed and doing heaps of independent stuff with Guys like Slash.

gh_koc_1127131

I have wanted to write a blog post about Glenn Hughes for some time now as he really is such a nice Bloke these days, and his attendance at Dio’s memorial was the perfect op.
It also gave me another excuse to put up a Dio tube vid on ‘Eternal vigilance’ in Memorial of his passing.
I have enjoyed Dio’s work for decades.

I do worry about where Ronny is now.
I know that ‘RocknRoll Rebels’ Like Dio and Ozzy are Show men acting out a Part for the entertainment of Fans… that these sorts of artists rarely… truly worship Satan, yet it still scares me that they face eternity without calling upon the Name of Christ… the Lamb of God he sent to save us sinners from paying the price of our own evils.
I fear Ronny did not grasp his own need for Christ… Satan laughing spreads his wings. 🙁

Sadly Dio’s opportunity to receive Christ has passed… hopefully…. secretly… sometime when he was alive he had a moment of clarity… and did ask God to forgive him in Christ’s name.
It is something we all must do.
Ozzy and Glenn still have the opportunity to do so.

Being reformed arseholes is not sufficient to redeem our souls from Divine Judgement for our evil deeds.
We all need to look to the Cross of Christ.
This is not the popular image of ‘Satanic Rebellion’ which so many people have been duped into believing is ‘cool’ … yet it is the *only* way, the truth, and the life.
We can only enter heaven on God’s terms… not ours.

It is my one of my greatest hopes to be able to communicate these truths to my Rock n roll Icons.
Maybe facebook will be the conduit of God’s love, peace, and grace towards them.
Alice Cooper, Dave Mustaine, and Brian Welch all figured this out and are now saved by God’s love and Grace.
I sincerely hope this list grows.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

dioo
Glenn Huges ‘Today’ and Dio’s 4th anniversary memorial.

Update: 22-5-14
Great News!
Glenn Hughes Confesses Christ!

From Facebook: “I don’t talk about religion on the Internet .. I know who is my saviour – and I walk with him daily .. It’s in my autobiography .. Some people don’t understand about GOD ,or want to know .. You all know my belief”

Wow! That was news to me and so I Googled ‘Glenn Hughes a Christian’…. and this was on one of the hits…

Commenting on his short stint with Black Sabbath…

“I’m a Christian, I’ve always been a Christian; we know about the alcohol and the drugs but that’s another story. And I didn’t really feel comfortable singing dark stuff…”

You can read more about it >>>Here.<<< This is Fantastic news! Read more... Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.

Jimi vs Jesus.

The Jaws of Hell. H R Giger

Alice Cooper Goes to Hell. Nek Minnit!

Megadeths Dave Mustaine is a Christian.

Brian Welch: From Korn to Jesus

The Gospel of God’s Grace.