Comfortably Numb : Confessions of a Nyctophilliac.

There is a common excuse that ‘You cant choose what you believe’… this is self delusion.
In reality we all choose to believe what we do, it just a matter of what moves us.
Some of us are more objective than others … yet being human, psychology still plays a massive roll.
We kid ourselves if we think we are without personal prejudice.

nyctophilia… “an abnormal preference for the night over the day.”

huxley

^^^ This meme I ‘liberated’ from the excellent facebook page ‘The Illogical Atheist’ because it vindicates an argument I made in a previous post Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….
Through this meme… The Horse speaketh!

The important thing to appreciate is that many people choose to be atheists because they seek to pretend there are no morals by which they are duty bound.
They block out any and all objective facts of reality or sound arguments that challenge their coveted Nihilism…. closing their eyes, and their minds to any truth which threatens to awaken them from their Meaningless, purposeless, Conscienceless dream.
They keep chanting to themselves… “There is no God”.

In the words of Perfect Circles Maynard James Keenan…
“Best to keep things in the shallow end.
Because I never quite learned how to swim.
I just didn’t want to know”

Read more about my take on Music as a religion… Jim Morrison…. Maynard James Keenan Here>>> Jimi vs Jesus

More…. Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….

“Keep things in the shallow end… because I just didn’t want to know…”

Seether: Know Thyself. How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? Part 5.

Guy Fawkes. Agent of The AntiChrist. (Re-post)

Gunpowder-Plot-PUC-Med

Guy Fawkes night is creepy! Yet raise your glasses high Ye Liberty Lovers!
As a Libertarian Christian it creeps me out to think about how as a child I took great pleasure in making a Guy for the Bonfire. It bothers me that in my innocence that the sight of a Man burning at the stake did not provoke in me any horror whatsoever… but joy.
Pondering this I shudder at the thought of times and places where Real Men and woman were burned on bonfires, and worse still many of these were Heroic and Righteous people, completely innocent of any wrongdoing. They were victims of persecution and corrupt Laws and Governments, and Religious intolerance. Many were like myself… fringe dwellers labeled Unorthodox ‘Heretics’ and Non-conformists whom dared to challenge the Authority and Doctrines of the Orthodox Church.
Yet Guy Fawkes was not Officially a Heretic , nor was he burned at the stake. For the crime of High treason, He was Hung, Drawn, and Quartered! This is a process in which after being dragged through the streets and Hung on the Gallows, the Body is then cut into 4 pieces. These were then usually fed to Dogs.
All this heinous business churns the stomach and one may wonder why it is that 400 years after the barbaric punishment of Guy Fawkes we still celebrate the event? It is here where I must say that despite the atrocious fate of Guy Fawkes, I am a Fan of this celebration as it memorializes one of the most important circumstances of Providence in establishing Liberty in Western Civilization. Today there is a lot of Fireworks and money changing hands yet the truth behind this celebration is all but forgotten. Let me touch briefly upon the monumental events of the time and activities of Guy Fawkes, and revive understanding of the true meaning of this strange Day.

1605 Guy Fawkes was a devout Catholic, a Jesuit, and enemy of the Protestant King of England and Scotland James the 1st. The Jesuits were a Machiavellian Order…the KGB of the Catholic Church. They were involved in Covert / black opps and because King James had authorized an official translation of the Bible into English, The Catholic Church had marked him for Assassination. The last thing they wanted was the Bible placed into the hands of the common Man! They wanted to maintain their Monopoly on the word of God, the control of which left the populations of Europe at the mercy of the Priest-craft of the church of Rome. In these times Protestant Christians called the Pope the Antichrist, and as if to prove them absolutely right, his Satanic church moved to suppress The word of God from reaching the common Englishman. Enter Guy Fawkes and the Gun powder plot. He was caught planting Gun power in the cellars of the House of Lords to be detonated when King James was in attendance. After getting a forced confession He was sentenced to death and executed. There is not space here to lay out just how dire it would have been to the Liberation of Western Civilization from the yoke of religious tyranny had the Plot succeeded. When the Authorised King James Bible was published in 1611 the effect was Explosive! It is no exaggeration to rank its publication as the single greatest impetus to Freedom and Justice in Modern history. I will leave you with a 200 word letter I sent into the Waikato Times earlier this year in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

Dear Ed…This year marks the 400th anniversary of the 1611 King James Bible. Its publication was the greatest single event of the Protestant Reformation inspiring enlightenment, religious toleration, independent thought, and justice among English speaking peoples and beyond. It was onboard the ships of the Pilgrim fathers whom set sail for America desiring freedom from old world tradition and ‘orthodoxy’. An explosion of denominations and sects occurred, which many conservatives mistake as a great evil, when in truth this represents true religious liberty from the tyranny of priest craft and the establishment. Tom Payne quoted the KJV in his ‘Common Sense’ sparking the American Revolution. John Locke used it in formulating his two treaties on civil government upon which Jefferson founded the American Declaration of Independence. It was the Mighty sword used by Wilberforce to end slavery in the British Empire , and later fostered the fraternal inspiration of North American abolition. The Font of civilization, it dispatched brave Church missionaries down to the antipodes to liberate savage tribes from superstition, cannibalism, and lawlessness. It was often upon the lips of Martin Luther King jr calling for peaceful civil disobedience in the fight for equal rights for blacks, etc. Praise God Almighty!
Tim Wikiriwhi

Nothing less than this entire history was at stake in 1605. As a Libertarian, I’m sure glad Guy Fawkes failed. I celebrate the survival of King James the first as an act of Divine Providence from which Western civilization embarked upon the road to religious liberty and enlightenment.

Picture: Painting of the Radical Abolitionist John Brown who inspired by the King James Bible set about to overthrow slavery in the American South by force of arms. Some believe him to be a murderer, Yet in my view He was a righteous Man. He did nothing which was not done on a much grander scale in the Civil War which soon followed after his capture and execution. For an interesting first hand account of this Radical Christian and the abolition of slavery in America I suggest reading ‘The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.’

Don’t hate on beneficiaries

Fellow blogger Tim has suggested that solo parent beneficiaries are morally inferior to prostitutes. I think this is false.

Government forcibly takes from the productive – which is wrong but it doesn’t mean that it is wrong to receive from the government.

Everyone (or practically everyone) accepts money from the government. Consider these examples of government payouts:-

  • Pensions
  • Working For Families “tax credits”
  • Kiwisaver “employer contribution”
  • Student Allowance
  • Unemployment Benefit
  • Sickness Benefit
  • Wages
  • Contract payments
  • Tax loopholes

Receiving money under the above situations is not in itself wrong and morally no different than receiving a Solo Parent Benefit.

Some people may be motivated to get on a benefit by laziness but laziness is not worse than prostitution.

Prostitution is itself necessarily wrong – receiving money from the government is not.

Beneficiaries are no more deserving of hate than prostitutes – and anger towards them is misdirected – it is the politicians and their supporters committing the unjust acts of theft.

Babes and Ball Crushers.

1003146_608278955869727_820295380_n
Nice! A Beautiful woman taking full advantage of her Femininity.

The following is an exert From a ‘New Statesman’ article…

‘Of course all men don’t hate women. But all men must know they benefit from sexism.’

“This is going to hurt. In the past few months, it has been almost impossible to open a newspaper or turn on a television without encountering a story about another under-age girl being raped, another female politician harassed, another trans woman murdered. But as women, girls and a growing number of male allies start speaking out against sexism and injustice, a curious thing is happening: some people are complaining that speaking about prejudice is itself a form of prejudice.

These days, before we talk about misogyny, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say, “Men oppress women” – that’s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, “Some men oppress women.” Whatever you do, don’t generalise. That’s something men do. Not all men – just some men.

This type of semantic squabbling is a very effective way of getting women to shut up. After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people’s feelings ahead of our own. We aren’t supposed to say what we think if there’s a chance it might upset somebody else or, worse, make them angry. So we stifle our speech with apologies, caveats and soothing sounds. We reassure our friends and loved ones that “you’re not one of those men who hate women”.

What we don’t say is: of course not all men hate women. But culture hates women, so men who grow up in a sexist culture have a tendency to do and say sexist things, often without meaning to. We aren’t judging you for who you are but that doesn’t mean we’re not asking you to change your behaviour. What you feel about women in your heart is of less immediate importance than how you treat them on a daily basis.

You can be the gentlest, sweetest man in the world yet still benefit from sexism. That’s how oppression works. Thousands of otherwise decent people are persuaded to go along with an unfair system because it’s less hassle that way. The appropriate response when somebody demands a change in that unfair system is to listen, rather than turning away or yelling, as a child might, that it’s not your fault. And it isn’t your fault. I’m sure you’re lovely. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to do something about it.

Read more >>>here<<< if you must. ^^^^Whiny Pseudo-Feminist Bullshit Saith I! Esp in New Zealand and the West. We are not talking about the severe oppression of woman in Islamic nations. The feminists in those countries are *Real Activists for equality* fighting *Real Sexism*. We are talking about the Delusion of oppression in countries like New Zealand, Australia, Brittan, etc. Countries in which We actually have the reverse! Woman get special treatment. We have Laws which give Woman advantages and oppress men. Most of what the feminists in western nations bleat about is not about oppression but about Freedom! They are typically Butt ugly Lefty Hot-woman haters and Ball crushers... Notice how the article attempts to lay collective blame upon *all men* as complicit in this 'Sexual tyranny'. Notice how it attempts to nullify the truth... that it is only *a minority* of men who rape, etc. funny-feminist-meme-girl

Pseudo-Feminists seek to De-sex themselves and Men… yet they still want men to treat them like ladies and to be Manly…. It’s utter confusion!
Its a travesty!

boobs

Equality means Woman should be prepared to be hit on at work and have their breast comment on and to allow men to have titty calendars up in their workshops… and to hear sexist jokes because that’s freedom and equality.

I’m not suggesting Men ought to behave like that but that such behaviour does not represent ‘oppression.
Most of the time it’s just light humour of the same sort as Men poke at each other.
At worst it’s just bad manors and crass.

Men dont care if woman have Calenders of ‘half naked men in their office… or tell feminist jokes or get hit on by female co-workers….

Of course it is the right of employers to govern such things as Calenders, etc in the work place and to foster a culture where everyone feels comfortable .
What I am griping about is the new culture of Complaint when a feminist goes into a Man’s domain and then complains to Management about a Girlie calendar on a Guys work station.

sexism3

Feminists make up a large percentage of the Vocal support restore and to maintain the prohibition of prostitution, and to ban Pornography… which are Laws which remove woman’s rights over their own bodies.

fem4

*What feminists want is not equality and freedom* but Special advantages and to oppress men for being men.
It sux and it makes woman into ugly He-woman… a type of transvestite!

fem 3

I am not saying *All large plain Janes are like this. Many are not.
Many are not bitter and twisted Men haters.
Yet There is a good reason why Feminists are stereotyped as Big fat ugly women with bad attitudes.
Why these particular types Hate prostitutes and strippers.
Hate beautiful woman being ogled at.
It’s because they are driven by *Envy* and lack of self esteem.
They blame Men and Hot chicks for their own obesity!
Truly most Western feminists are uglier on the inside than on the out!

I’m not even suggesting woman ought to be prostitutes, strippers, or Porn stars.
I am saying that such things are within their legitimate rights and liberties.
I’m a Christian and as such I believe sex workers *devalue them selves*… yet because the world is the way it is… I can appreciate and respect why they do it.
I have far more respect and admiration for sex workers than for Dole bludgers.
To my way of thinking a dollar earned by sex work is an honest Dollar, as it allows them to take care of themselves and to provide for their kids, etc.
You see plenty of woman take full advantage of their beauty and femininity… as Models, Promo Girls, and in the entertainment industry.
Many get rich and famous because of it.
The reality in the West is that most of the so-called Feminism in the movement is not about getting equal rights for woman. Its a Bogus ‘charade Feminism’… a Front… for large numbers of Fat, ugly, Nasty woman to hate on Men and their more beautiful contemporaries who have taken the trouble to Keep them selves in shape and looking their best… and wield formidable Sexual power.
(Take care Babes… The love of Money… and power Corrupts!)

amy lee palmer
Kiwi Model Amy Lee Palmer

fem 2

There are no Laws in NZ which says Woman must accept lower pay than men.
There are no Laws in New Zealand against woman becoming Mechanics and Engineers, Truck drivers etc.
The fact is that for what ever reason woman choose not to engage in these types of occupation.
This disparity is Freedom at work.
The fact is that you ought not to require Political coercion to achieve a higher order of civilisation.
If some people think this is wrong then they ought to try and start a cultural revolution via preaching and sharing their values and vision, not to lobby for restrictions on Liberty.
If ultimately they are ignored because Society does not desire to change or embrace their opinion
that’s simply ‘Hard Cheese’ for them.
They have no legitimate rights to impose their opinions upon society via Anti-freedom legislations.

glasses

Like most men I Love woman!
In my dealings with them at work and in my private life I attempt to treat them with the utmost respect no matter whether I find them attractive or not.
I take care not to allow myself to be governed by my own sexual drives and opinions.
I respect competence, intelligence, ethics, and nouse.
IMO A woman’s attitude is what is the most important thing.
A sexy woman with a nasty, demanding, Cold or Narcissistic attitude is *Not sexy!*…. she’s a Monster as far as I’m concerned.
And a woman who may be considered plain or overweight is far more appealing when they are happy within themselves and not consumed with envy and jealousy… when they actually enjoy being treated as an equal… laughs and enjoys Boys being boys in her presence… takes no offence at Blonde jokes, and does not get nasty when Men take notice of beautiful woman.
That is an emancipated woman.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Read more about this here >>>> The mother of Invention?

Feminism, Lisa Lewis, and the death of romance.

Meet a Real Feminist with a legitimate cause here >>>> “If I don’t speak, who will?” Malala Yousafzai, 14

I’m a Real Feminist myself! >>>> Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

A word about Socialism

537838_10153445455140515_1251393413_n

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

1394392_10152359786199126_385847400_n

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

1450125_10202208941248421_264077122_n

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

1233380_10152278448779126_1918446783_n

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

3-They-Live-OBEY-1988

Crocodile Tears.

commy arseholes

^^^This Meme is bullshit!!!
This is the whiny Drivel of Parasites whom feed off the blood of their Neighbours in the private sector.
The reality is that those whom seek to Stop raising the debt ‘ceiling’and put an end to the Big spending over-government which created the crisis… is not merely ‘playing politics’ but a matter of either facing reality or putting off facing the music and making the eventual catastrophe that much greater…. that much harder to recover from!

cre

Yet those whom profit from the tyranny of the Status quo are only concerned about maintaining the flow of filthy lucre into their bank accounts.
Those who live by suckling at the teets of a bloated government need to appreciate that the Day of reckoning is fast approaching and a revolution unto the Death!
A revolution between Liberty and tyranny…. and if Tyranny wins…. God Forbid!

diana

State Tit suckers be warned!
Stop working for the Beast! 666
Get Real Jobs *Now*!
For the sake of your immortal souls…. and your Children.
Alas…. most of you will simply receive the Mark of the Beast…. Worship his image…. and Beg for greater Brutality!
And unfortunately …. because the financial collapse will be massive… many Good people in the private sector will also loose their Jobs and businesses, etc.
We all should be Prepping!
Read about the approaching Fiscal cliff here >>>> Epitaph. The Death of America and Western Democracy. Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech.

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

community_targets_store_selling_legal_highs

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

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change comes from within.

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

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

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

More than enough is too much.

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

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!