Two Traveling Thoughts -- Prose by Aime Lyn Helbane

Some Prose About Two Travelers

I have chosen these two short pieces of prose by Aime Lyn Helbane, which are about two different subjects who,  each in their own ways, are travelers. They don’t merely travel across physical space, but also travel across epistemological and spiritual reality; their physical travels reflect the psychological and spiritual travels.

 

Restless Nomad Heart

“Bird,” by Lisa Runnels.

Once there was a traveler who had the eyes of a hawk; he could look far, far away and see what he could see there and then he would visit the places he had seen. You see, he was not merely a traveler, but a seeker as well. He held his eyes near always, because he used them so much for everything. If he had no eyes, how could he know when he had found what he sought?

So he lived and he searched, and he wandered, and he searched, and he searched, and he searched, and one day he found with a shock that he was rotting within his own skin. How could this be? He was always trying so hard to keep moving, so that the poisons couldn’t settle. He couldn’t know he had been carrying those poisons the whole time.

He also did not know that when he thought his hawk eyes caught a glimpse of what he thought he sought that it was ever only a mirage — or, more accurately, a reflection — and it confused him greatly when he began to question his own eyes, the very artifacts which had carried him this far, and aided him so much.

Yet all the things he saw and passed by in his search screamed to him in voices his dull ears could not hear: your eyes will never find what you seek because there is one place that you will never see with them. And the rocks by the path, and the flowers, and the sun, and moon, and the wind all wept for the tragedy of his continued footfalls, for the fool, himself, was the only one not privy to the joke he played on himself.

 

Dracosynesthesia

The wind beneath my wings paints my humming flesh in hues unheard of by any rainbow. The tingling tickling of thrumming hairs against timpanous armor plates somehow lifts me higher, octave by octave, seven plus the first again — such a wildly colorful value. I can smell the joy and the blood of browning reeds whipping up from the rhythmic oscillations which bear me aloft on the ever-flowing breath of the upper atmosphere.

Ah, identity is but an amorphous shadow of an individual — or is it the identity that casts the shadow when separated colors become opaque lenses vibrating with so little energy? The brightly violet words of omniscient eternity echo through my buzzing brain like four-dimensional representations of sacred geometry. They channel themselves through gritted teeth, leaving the residual taste of lost knowledge resting at the edge of my gums, blackened by years of learned apathy. I was not always this harsh to the inner ear.

If home is where the heart is, mine was surely built amongst the most symphonious of stars falling from the cerulean-chilly November sky in clattering minor keys of fiery red and orange. One day, I hope to make my resolute return to the harmonious houses of infinite lovesong and heartshine hues far more brilliantly than I arrived (with strands of muted colors attempting to run straight and narrow, but tangling into dissonant squiggles of confusion).

Two Traveling Thoughts -- Prose by Aime Lyn Helbane

The End-Times Prophesies of the Hopi Indians

Thomas Banyacya — Hopi Traditionalist Interpreter

“Top of Bright Angel Trail,” by Russ Brown.

“In the Hopi teachings, we are told that toward the end of the world, Spider Woman will come back and she will weave her web across the landscape. Everywhere you will see her web. That’s how we will know that we are coming to the end of this world, when we see her web everywhere. I believe I have just seen her web.”
–Thomas Banyacya

 

That was Thomas Banyacya’s reaction to seeing the Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant, which sends electricity from the Niagara Falls generating plant throughout Western New York. Banyacya is a Hopi traditionalist interpreter and that passage is from Thinking In Indian: A John Mohawk Reader (Fulcrum 2010).

 

What Happens After the End of the World

With the world crying Mayan apocalypse tomorrow, December 21, it seemed prudent to explore other end of the world teachings. Even though the Mayans weren’t actually predicting the end of the world, we’ll play along anyway.

 

Hopi Signs of the Apocalypse

Other Hopi teachings refer to the “nine signs.”

The first sign said the white-skinned men would come. the second said: “Our lands will see the coming of spinning wheels filled with voices. In his youth, my father saw this prophecy come true with his eyes—the white men bringing their families in wagons across the prairies.”

The rest of the signs are typically listed as follows:

“This is the Third Sign: A strange beast like a buffalo but with great long horns, will overrun the land in large numbers. These White Feather saw with his eyes—the coming of the white men’s cattle.”

“This is the Fourth Sign: The land will be crossed by snakes of iron.”

“This is the Fifth Sign: The land shall be criss-crossed by a giant spider’s web.”

“This is the Sixth Sign: The land shall be criss-crossed with rivers of stone that make pictures in the sun.”

“This is the Seventh Sign: You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it.”

“This is the Eighth Sign: You will see many youth, who wear their hair long like my people, come and join the tribal nations, to learn their ways and wisdom.”

“And this is the Ninth and Last Sign: You will hear of a dwelling-place in the heavens, above the earth, that shall fall with a great crash. It will appear as a blue star. Very soon after this, the ceremonies of my people will cease.”

The End-Times Prophesies of the Hopi Indians

My Red Dawn Epiphany -- the Traitorous American Media

The Anti-American Media Establishment

A screen capture from the Red Dawn film website.

I had a bit of an epiphany yesterday while I was watching the DVD of Red Dawn (the 2012 version). It occurred to me that there were many leftist critics who slammed the movie for its patriotic theme and moral values such as standing up for what you believe in, repelling a foreign military occupation, respecting American sovereignty, etc. This got me asking, “Who in the world would make such claims and why?”

I mean, let’s face it, those kinds of statements are bordering on traitorous. They aren’t quite there, but certainly fall only a hair’s breadth shy of it.

 

The CHICAGO READER Employs Traitorous Scumbags

Drew Hunt of the Chicago Reader makes the following statements about the movie:

“John Milius’s 1984 cult classic about American teens battling a Soviet invasion has been reinvented as a Tea Party wet dream that offers a scathing (if completely illogical) indictment of the federal government. When the western seaboard is invaded by the North Korean army, the president fails to act, so a pack of high schoolers in Washington State launch a rebel resistance to defend our liberty. As these young freedom fighters forge ahead, courageously exercising their Second Amendment rights, screenwriters Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore merge action movie heroics with ass-backwards politics, blunting the genre pleasures that made the original so delightfully kitsch. Dan Bradley directed; with Chris Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.”

 

Apparently, this critic has allowed his political views to overshadow his professionalism. Instead of reviewing the movie based on its acting, script and cinematography, he politicizes the film in a sorry attempt to please his left wing masters. There is a concept in the literary arts, of which film making is a part, called the suspension of disbelief. This concept is an agreement between the writer (in this case, of the movie script) and the intended audience (in this case, the movie-goer) to suspend reality for the duration of the story. If we did not have this agreement with those whom we charge with our entertainment, we would not have an entire genre of literature or film called fiction.

It is not the job of the critic to impose their political views on the reader. Rather, it is the job of the critic to inform the reader of facts about the movie relating to the acting abilities of the cast, how well the story is written and the quality of the cinematography. Drew Hunt failed in this regard completely. Instead, Drew writes a political statement about the movie which is of no consequence to the reader. Those who would be interested in such a film already know of its political bent.

As if that isn’t bad enough of a departure of the critic’s responsibility to the reader, he is entirely inaccurate in his political assessment as well. The movie makes no assumptions regarding the abilities of our current government to repel such an invasion other than what is implied by the unwritten agreement to suspend reality for a short time. In that suspension, it is assumed by the viewer that America was caught by a surprise military attack beginning with what is presumed to be an EMP burst which cripples the entire West Coast. After that, there is absolutely no mention of what the military or other government controlled forces are doing until the Wolverines are reinforced by a small group of former marines on a mission. This alone implies that there is an active military resistance engaging the enemy.

 

DIGITAL SPY Employs Traitorous Scumbags

Ben Rawson-Jones of Digital Spy makes the following comment:

“This dismal remake of the overrated ’80s cult flick is littered with the type of nausea-inducing patriotic dialogue lampooned by the likes of Team America: World Police.”

 

Nausea inducing patriotic dialogue? Since when is love of country nauseous? This kind of statement implies that Mr. Rawson-Jones, who can’t even make up his mind on what his last name is, would support an invasion of the United States; his home; his country. It is the likes of people like him who would end up being the collaborators depicted in this film. Traitorous certainly and bordering on treasonous are his words.

 

THE SKINNY Employs Naive, Unprofessional Journalists

John Nugent, who writes for The Skinny, a UK based website, makes claims about the movie which clearly show his lack of understanding of American culture and patriotism. He writes:

“In 1984, the year Orwell prophesied doom, writer-director John Milius took the Cold War to its barely logical conclusion for Red Dawn, imagining a Third World War where parachuting Soviets invaded the US mainland and might have triumphed, were it not for a plucky band of American freedom fighters. In this silly, and largely pointless remake, the enemy may have changed, but the same fatuous paranoia, flag-fluttering patriotism, and flimsy grip on international politics remains. Just as Soviet Russia was a handy baddie in the ’80s – mysterious, aloof, faceless – so North Korea apparently is today. A right-wing fantasy writ large, the premise would be intriguing if it wasn’t so patently absurd. There’s competent action from first-time director Dan Bradley and the cast, led by Chris Hemsworth, are fine. But it remains an entirely ludicrous ninety minutes, jingoistically guileless in depicting an American insurgency fighting back against an invading foreign army – in reality, of course, it tends to be the other way around.”

 

Apparently, Mr. Nugent is a relative newcomer to the planet. Having lived through almost three decades of the Cold War, I can certainly tell you that the Soviets were neither convenient nor faceless. The quip “Kill a Commie for your mommy,” was a staple of the time. We were more than merely vaguely aware of our enemy and their capabilities. They represented a very real and inconvenient threat. One that Americans greatly feared and, rightfully so.

While, I am in agreement with Mr. Nugent that the North Koreans certainly don’t represent even a remotely credible threat to the United States at this time, there is still one thing that he conveniently forgets in his futile attempt to spout his traitorous political dogma: the concept of fiction known as the suspension of disbelief. He forgets that it is really irrelevant who the enemy is that invades mainland America. What is important is the story of what happens next.

This critic is obviously more interested in making a political name for himself than he is in critiquing movies based on their merit. He wants America to know that he believes patriotism and solid moral values to be a thing of the past. These are things to be laughed at and scorned rather than nurtured and applauded. The antagonists are not to be vilified, but rather, shown to be misunderstood and in need of their mother’s comforting breast.

Maybe John (Yellow-Belly) Nugent may not be interested in defending his country from enemy invaders, but I can attest to the fact that Americans, no matter how divided and polarized we may be on political matters, will not tolerate such actions from any military force. Not even our own.

 

JEREMY LEBENS is a Traitorous Scumbag

Jeremy Lebens typifies the radical left wing opinions regarding patriotism when he states:

“Not once does Bradley suggest that Red Dawn is anything more than a quick PG-13 action film, with humor seasoned in to keep it from turning stale, so why the need to constantly force the film’s cheesy patriotic messages? Do the filmmakers really think anyone watching the film gives a damn? I know I certainly didn’t. Not once does the film extend past its silly plot and because of that it shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

 

Really? You don’t give a damn about patriotism? Maybe, Jeremy Lebens, you would prefer to live under the oppressive and tyrannical rule of our enemies. While I am certain that there will come a day when patriotism is no longer necessary in our world, the fact remains that in today’s reality, it is a vital and necessary element of our global society. Until we have worked out that tyranny and oppression of people is not a good thing, as Mr. Lebens appears to not understand yet, and Freedom and Liberty are causes worth fighting and dying for, patriotism is going to remain a vital part of American culture. Without it, we have no understanding of who the bad guys are.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you, Jeremy Lebens, we are the good guys because we are the ones who support concepts like Freedom and Liberty for all people, in spite of the current administrations attempts to subvert these most righteous ideals. Once the whole world is free and liberated from oppression, then we can start talking about patriotism being something we don’t give a damn about. Until then, such talk is tolerated simply because our culture demands we tolerate such weak minded speech from people with yellow streaks down their backs.

 

The Indecency of Moral Cowardice

So, why am I writing a tirade on the likes of spineless film critics?

There comes a time when certain elements of society need to be removed. We do this every day with our criminals. They commit a crime and we put them in prison for a time hoping to rehabilitate them. The problem with left wing radicalism is that their rhetoric is not illegal, although it certainly can be argued to be immoral. So it is time for us, as Americans, to step up our pressure on the enemy’s attempts to overthrow our system and culture from within. And here is how we need to go about doing it.

For the most part, we know who these left wing nut cases are. We know where they live, where they shop, where they attend religious services, etc. So, it is time to shut our doors to them. If they come into your place of business, politely escort them out the door and off the premises. If they show up at your restaurant, refuse them service. If they show up at your church, synagogue, temple or other place of worship, deny them access. Don’t let them in your home. If they try to engage you in conversation, politely extract yourself from the situation and let them continue on their conversation by themselves. I mean, let’s face it, you don’t really want to hear what they have to say, anyway.

Complete and total ostracizing from polite society is required. They must be made aware that their cowardice, inflammatory remarks, intolerance and incivility will no longer be allowed in American culture.

 

Social Ostracization, not the Initiation of Violence

Now, let me be perfectly clear on a couple of points. First, I am not suggesting in any way that we bring any sort of harm to these people. If, as a result of their complete removal from the fabric of civilized society, they are starving because they cannot find a store to let them purchase food, then be kind and feed the wretches. If they are in need of medical care, then offer them enrollment into Obamacare. If they are being brutalized by bullies, do not look the other way saying to yourself that they deserve what they get. Rather, go up to them and remind them that this is exactly the society they asked for and now they have to reap what they have sown. Just kidding. Of course, behave humanely toward them and offer them aid and assistance by pulling out your pistol and shooting the scum who is beleaguering them.

By behaving civilly and humanely toward them after they have hit bottom, they will quickly come to understand that polite society demands they behave themselves and support the culture we have nourished over the past couple of centuries.

 

The Finer Points of Truth

The second thing I want to point out is that I am not referring to the entire Left. There are many on the left who do not hold the radicalized concepts of the far left. These people genuinely believe that their concepts are morally just and righteous. To be fair, I have to agree that some of them are. Hell, even I support some of their beliefs. These people are necessary to encourage debate and discussion on relevant and important topics. It is impossible to debate only one side of an issue. It is far better to debate multiple sides of an issue. So we need the left to help balance out our society and bring new ideas to the table. If we were to leave all new ideas up to the Right, we would never see any as it is their position that we should continue to do things the way we always have. This is not appropriate for our culture as it promotes stagnation.

 

Identify the Traitors

But radicals, like the Clintons, Obamas, Piers Morgan, Wolf Blitzer (sorry Wolf, I used to respect your journalistic integrity until you decided to no longer remain neutral and sided with the extreme left) and the gamut of Hollywood and Manhattan neo-elitists need to be put in their place. We can do this simply by hitting them where it hurts them the most: their egos. If we refuse to watch leftist propaganda films, Hollywood will stop making them. If we refuse to feed extreme leftist politicians, they will stop supporting our enemies for a ham sandwich. If we stop watching CNN and MSNBC, they will be forced to remove the personalities we dislike. If we stop supporting the companies who advertise on these networks, their revenue will decline and they, too, will be forced find other ways to cater to normal Americans.

We must keep the pressure on for several generations. This is the only way we can be sure that the radical left stops performing acts of terror, killing of innocent children in schools and other atrocious acts. It is the only way we can ensure their numbers dwindle to the point that people of strong moral character can again be entrusted with our highest political offices.

We can no longer afford to let radical extremists in our White House and Congress. We have to take a stand now, and put so much pressure on them that they are forced to confront their misbehavior and make amends to the people. This can only be done by completely ostracizing them from society. Take away their standing in society and they will rapidly change their ways.

My Red Dawn Epiphany -- the Traitorous American Media

Good for the Goose -- Should Illegally Acquired Evidence be Admissable in Court?

The Admissibility of Good Evidence Acquired Illegally by Private Citizens

“Police Lights,” by Peter Griffin.

If a person had good reason to believe that a violent crime was happening at his neighbor’s house then breaking in to the neighbor’s house would be justified. And even though they trespassed their testimony should be admissible in court.

If, on the other hand, a person broke in to their neighbor’s house without a good reason and discovered some crime their testimony should be admissible in court and they should receive the punishment for trespassing/breaking and entering.

That’s all pretty straight forward and I expect everyone agrees… now what if the person trespassing/breaking and entering is working for the government?

 

Why Should Good Evidence Collected by Government Agents Illegally be Inadmissible?

What happens is that government employees are not prosecuted and their discovery is not admissible in court (e.g the Tohoe spying). This accepted procedure enables two injustices.

All evidence should be allowed in Court and crimes committed by government employees should be prosecuted.

 

My Response on the Original Post

Mark I Rasskazov: I disagree. Because government is the institutionalization of force, we have to be extremely careful about the procedures associated with its use. I can envision a situation where black operations cells spring up that involve breaking and entering to get convictions, and, when caught, these agents merely get a slap on the wrist to appease the public, followed by bonuses and promotions under [other] pretexts. In other words, it’s a conflict of interest.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What do you think? Should evidence collected illegally by government agents be admissible in court, provided the government agents are properly chastised or punished? Or do you think, as I do, that this would create a conflict of interest resulting in widespread abuse? Reed is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

 

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

Good for the Goose -- Should Illegally Acquired Evidence be Admissable in Court?

How to Save Money Shaving

How to Save Money Every Morning

American men spend hundreds of dollars a year, if not thousands, shaving their faces. Individual razors can cost upwards of $5.00 each, and last about a week before they rust or get dull. The cheapest ones cost about $0.30, do not provide a smooth shave, leave ingrown hairs, and are only “good” (I use the term loosely) for a single use.

If you are using supermarket disposable razors, then you are getting gouged, both physically and financially.

 

What Are You Paying to Shave?

Let’s put this in perspective. If you are using a decent, supermarket razor, then you are paying $5.00 per week to shave (not counting shaving cream and other related products). $5.00 x 52 weeks = $260.00 — annually.

If you are poor (or unwilling to pay hundreds of dollars per year to shave), then you are paying — on the low end — $0.30 x 365 days = $109.50 annually; and for your “savings,” you have to deal with chaffing, ingrown hairs, poor shaves, and general facial discomfort.

When you see the alternatives to these choices, you will be incensed at the raw (pun intended) deal you are getting.

 

The Alternatives to Shoddy, Expensive Shaving

A Parker brand folding razor and Shark replacement razors.

Straight razors.

They are cheap, effective, compact, and provide a smooth, satisfying shave.

Now, with this, you have a couple options. If you’re wanting to commit to the whole deal, you can get an old-school folding blade, that never has to be replaced, and just needs to be periodically sharpened. Now, this option has a fairly hefty up-front investment, so you shouldn’t do it unless you’re fairly certain you want to commit to it. The sharpening belt will cost about %15.00 on the low end, and the razor can cost upwards of $50.00; but — once you’ve made the initial investment, that’s it! You will never have to spend another red cent on shaving accoutrements. Ever. Again. Unless, of course, you screw up the razor during the sharpening process. In which case, you’ve screwed yourself out of a razor, and will need to get a new one. It is recommended that you get a a cheap, low end razor, first (you can get them for about $15.00), and practice sharpening it before investing in a really good razor.

Or, you can get disposable straight razors. You may ask, “aren’t I just replacing one kind of disposable razor for another?” Yes and no. Yes, they are disposable, but they are much more effective, and much much cheaper. Now, the deal is that you buy a non-disposable folding straight razor, but the razor itself is disposable (and is very easy to replace). No sharpening required. The folding razors can be had as cheaply as $15.00 or even less, and never have to be replaced. The disposable razors typically come in packs of 100, and are very cheap; between $5.00 – $10.00, depending on the brand — again — for packs of 100!

The cheaper brands are usually good for about a week each. The better brands last about two weeks before they start to get noticeably dull. I recommend the Parker brand for the folding razors; they don’t have the flimsy, cheap feel that some other brands do, and they can be had for about $15.00 to $20.00. I prefer the Shark brand of replaceable razors. They can be had for between $5.00 and $7.50 per pack, depending on the vender, and they last about two weeks per blade.

 

Lets do the Math, Here

You can get a folding razor and a pack of Shark replacement razors for a total of $20.00. Each razor lasts about two weeks before it starts to get dull. So that’s two razors per month, which means one pack should last about two years.

So, shaving this way costs $10.00 per year!!! And it’s every bit as good a shave as the high-end supermarket options.

 

Caveat

Now, shaving with a straight razor does require a little finesse. If you are not very careful, you could cut your face up something vicious. The key is to keep the razor almost parallel to your face at all times, inclining it only ever so slightly. I also don’t recommend attempting to dry shave with a straight razor unless you really know what you’re doing (I have done it successfully, but only by using extreme care).

So, let’s be clear — this is shaving with the training wheels off. But it’s not rocket science, and the savings are more than worth it!

How to Save Money Shaving

The GCSB Bill: Arabs and Maori Radicals with Knives at the Foot of the Bed

Why I Didn’t Speak at the GCSB Bill Protest

I was asked if I would speak at the GCSB Bill protest in Hamilton last Saturday. I had to decline because I said I had not read the bill, and that I did not know enough about it to say that it was bad legislation.

Now get this straight: I believe DotCom has been very unjustly treated, and that John Key was as guilty as sin and is lying through his teeth in respect to his complicity in this crime against a New Zealand resident, and also that I believe John Key seeks to rush through this Bill because he believes it will help him when he faces up and coming criminal charges for his part in the GCSB crimes; DotCom and others.

One is reminded of Helen Clark’s ‘Pledgecardgate’ electoral fraud and misappropriation crimes and her rushing retrospective legislation to halt her High court conviction and the nullification of the Labour election victory over Don Brash.

Thus I am fully aware that John Key and the GCSB have already abused the powers they have, and thus we must question any notion of granting them further powers to abuse!

Nonetheless, I could not say I oppose the bill, because in spite of all this shyster John Key business, I do believe that there could be legitimate national security issues at stake.

Let me elaborate further.

 

My Caveats Against Protesting the GCSB

John key has said that the new legislation would not legitimise what the GCSB did to Dotcom.

John Key also said the GCSB bill will not legalise the Government collecting, storing and eavesdropping all New Zealanders Internet and phone communications… Ie the GCSB bill is not a part of ‘Prism’.

John Key’s has now made further claims that we need the GCSB Bill because there are Al Qaeda Operatives here

…Yet What evidence do we have to support that last claim?

I am not saying that’s impossible for Al Quaeda to be here, but why should we accept it on the word of such a dishonest Scum bag as Key?

Why doesn’t Key say the truth?…. Ie that the GCSB Bill would have been of value in the Tu Hoe Raids, and that Tame iti would probably be in Jail for 20 years had the GCSB Bill been in place at the Time Iti was planning Domestic Terrorism!

It was only because bungling Anti-terrorist legislation that allowed Tame Iti and those Psychotic Tree-hugging Greens to escape… because just like the Dotcom case… In spying on Tame Iti and co, the Powers that be broke the Law, and thus the evidence they gathered about Planned hijacking and murder was inadmissible.

John Key cant mention this valid example for spying because of his cosy relationship with the Maori Party.

For me it was the discovery of what Tame Iti was up to which has made me appreciate that there are Rare circumstances of National security in which spying might be justified.

I dont believe that spying on Drug dealers is at all justifiable… because I dont believe dealing or

using drugs is a Crime…nor a threat to National security.

I dont believe the spying on Dotcom was justifiable either because he’s not a threat to anything but a Happy meal… or 20.

The Tuhoe terrorism scare was a very different kettle of fish.

The Police raids and arrests were a result of a covert spy operation in the Urewera bush whereby special ops were able to film a terrorist training camp and to eavesdrop on conversations about kidnapping and murder.

Tami iti and a collection of Maori Radicals and Extremist Greens were practising Military/ Guerilla type drills using fire arms and home made explosives/ fire bombs.

And by my way of thinking if there is a known conspiracy to commit terrorism or murder, I have little problem believing it is the duty of Government to act covertly and pre-emptively to prevent innocent people being harmed.

This is all a very messy situation… It presents me with a conundrum… because had Tame Iti merely been doing Militia combat training, and not talked about ‘practising’ killing on unfortunate ‘Pakeha’ I would have no grounds to say he was committing any crime.

And yet that is not the case.

He was planning Murder, Kidnapping, and the armed Overthrow of the the NZ government via terrorist means.

Yet still ….and this is where things get even more muddled….I also believe it is fine to practice for a revolution… the overthrow of a tyrannical government by force… Indeed I believe the only thing that can keep a Government from over reaching it’s just powers is a fear of the People uprising… thus in a free society I believe that many New Zealanders ought to be training for such an event.

The dilemma is how to maintain the rights of the population to prepare for a justifiable revolution… and yet also maintain the legitimate government’s ability to cut off Domestic terrorism… ie Unjust revolutions such as Tame Iti was planning.

The dilemma is how to grant the government the power to spy and record evidence against such criminal organisations as Tame itis Terrorists… but forbid them from being able to spy on the Righteous militia and their plans to overthrow an evil Government?

The Dilemma gets worse when you appreciate the reality that Tame Iti and his Band of Violent Greens believed their cause was Just.

Now I myself would love to see our oppressive government overthrown !

Yet my reasoning and justification is the exact opposite of Tame Iti and his TuHoe Terrorists.

They did not seek to establish a New Order of justice, Freedom, and equality, but to impose a severe Racist dictatorship… a lot like George Speight attempted to set up in Fiji… and like Mugabe was able to set up in Zimbabwe.

And Iti’s, Speights, and Mugabes Revolutions are to be juxtaposed against the latest military Coup in Egypt which has just overthrown the Elected government there because they were breaching the constitution and attempting to set up an Islamic State, and with Commodore Bainimarama’s righteous Coup in Fiji, who overthrew the Elected government there because they were busy setting up an apartheid system of Indigenous Rights.

Now Time has proven Bainimarama to be a very Benevolent Authority… with relatively few incidents of troop violence against the citizens of Fiji, and yet there have been some reported cases of serious violence purported by the Egyptian army against outraged Islamic Egyptians protesting the Coup… thus I hesitate to give full endorsement to the Revolutionary Cause.

These sorts of issues show just how difficult it is for any revolution to maintain the High/ righteous ground and avoid actions which are unjustifiable.

We must never forget that a righteous end cannot be used to justify corrupt means.

Some people may recoil at the Idea of the armed overthrow of an elected government… as if Mob rule is always right. It isn’t. The reality is all forms of Government can become oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical if they implement Laws which are Oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical.

All governments ought to be ‘hemmed in’ by an Iron-clad Constitution… this is what constitutes the Rule of Law… and when any government violates the Constitution it has become a Criminal organisation which needs to be abolished and New government instituted.

It also ought to be obvious that the only power possible to protect a legitimate government from being overthrown by an Evil Military Coup is by having a well armed population trained in Militia.

The Army will hesitate from any actions when it knows the people will rise up and fight.

This has been a very heavy trip!

Spying…. Terrorism… Corrupt Politicians…Armed revolution… Constitutions…. etc

These were some of my thoughts in respect to the GCSB bill, and why I hesitate to either endorse the Bill or to protest against it.

John Key is a Dirty lying scumbag Quisling and does not deserve to be granted more powers, and I fully support Dotcoms cause against the NZ Government… and yet there is so much more to this issue.

I believe we need more time to ponder what is at stake…. what are all the pitfalls, and in what final form such a Bill might be Good for New Zealand.

The Privacy of New Zealanders must not be curtailed under the guise of National security, and yet There must be means of identifying and catching terrorists before they strike.

It must be appreciated that it was because of poorly framed and rushed through Anti-terrorist legislation that allowed Tame iti and the Tuhoe terrorists to escape justice.
The Solicitor-General David Collins ruled that law was “almost impossible to apply in a coherent manner” and firearms charges were laid instead.

The last thing we need is more Bad legislation being rushed trough by a corrupt Prime minister who is seeking to mitigate his own culpability in regards to ongoing charges of Corruption and abuse of power.

That Key has played the Al Qaeda card is very suspect… and yet worrisome.

I also worry about the political connection between the PM and the GCSB.

We have all found out about John Keys devious Employment of his own Old school friend to the Head of the GCSB!…. Heinrich Himmler anyone???

The GCSB Bill: Arabs and Maori Radicals with Knives at the Foot of the Bed

On the Legal Rights of Children

The Current Legal Doctrine of Childrens’ Rights

“Young Family Looking Up,” by Vera Kratochvil.

The law currently states that an individual does not fully come into his/her rights until they become a legal adult, which occurs automatically at 18 (or earlier through a legal process of emancipation). In the meantime, childrens’ rights are a complex issue that have to be balanced against parental consent.

I think that this system works relatively well, however, in a perfect world, there are some things I would tweak.

 

Problems With the Current Legal System as it Pertains to Childrens’ Rights

There are two main problems with the current system:

1. Ambiguity surrounding childrens’ rights versus parental consent, which is further muddied by the existence of government bodies such as CPS, which are predatory, tyrannical, and destructive.

2. The idea behind legal minorship is that children have to reach a certain level of life experience and bio-psychological maturity before they are able to make informed decisions in society — which is true, however, this comes at different ages for different people, and some people never achieve this.

 

So my political theory simplifies this substantially. Because:

1. Children live at the largesse of their parents/guardians, and

2. Individual rights entail the corollary of individual responsibility, it follows that:

3. Children do not have individual rights (because they are not able to accept responsibility for themselves).

They are wards of their parents/guardians, who accept responsibility for them. This means that they are not responsible for their actions — their parents are. Likewise, they have no rights (with two caveats to be described in the next section); only such privileges which are specifically granted to them by their parents or guardians.

 

The Transegoist’s View on Childrens’ Rights

In sense, children can be thought of as pieces property belonging to their parents — however, because they have the POTENTIAL of self-responsibility, they do have two classes rights which property does not:

1. A child has the right to his/her life (which includes the right to be legally protected from sexual assault), and if a parent or guardian kills, consents for others to kill, or allows a child to die through negligence, then that parent or guardian is guilty of murder or manslaughter. Likewise, someone who has sex with a minor (regardless of that minor’s age) is guilty of rape, and if a parent consents to a their ward having sex is likewise guilty of conspiracy to rape.

2. A child has the right to announce his/her emancipation. At the moment that he/she choose to do this, the child becomes a legal adult, entitled to his/her individual rights, and accepts responsibility for himself/herself. An individual may return to dependent status only if there is mutual consent between him/her and his/her parent/guardian.

This way, if a child is being subjected to abuse, the child can remove himself/herself from the situation by declaring himself/herself to be emancipated. At that point, anything a now former parent/guardian does to the individual is felony assault, and the individual can press charges.

However, unless the child emancipates himself/herself, and so long as the parents or guardians do not violate the child’s right to his/her life, the parent or guardian may legally take whatever measures they deem necessary to prevent the child from doing harm to himself/herself and others.

This is a necessary condition, because if a legal minor, regardless of their age, commits a crime, then the parent or guardian, and not the legal minor, is legally responsible. In this sense, having a child is, legally, much like owning a pet. The pet is not legally responsible for its actions — the owner is. If a pet bites someone, then the owner is guilty of assault; if a pet kills someone, then the owner is guilty of manslaughter (or, possibly, of murder, if they intentionally “sic-ed” the pet on the victim); etc. — and likewise with children and legal minors; the only difference being that a pet can be put down, whereas a child or legal minor has the right to life — even if they commit a heinous crime.

 

The Corollary: Parents Have Rights, Too

Of course, the parent also has rights. If the child has gotten so far out of hand, or has grown so old, that the parent is no longer willing to accept legal and physical responsibility for them, or if the parent/guardian is simply unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for them anymore, then they can evict the minor. In this process, the parent or guardian must turn the minor over to the care of the state (an orphanage), or a consenting private party, declare the minor evicted, and then they are free of responsibility, and no longer are empowered to make decisions on their behalf. The minor, under the care of the state or private party retains his/her two rights (to life, and to emancipation), and has no rights beyond that until they declare their legal adulthood.

There would be no default age of legal adulthood. And if a minor has become a ward of the state for any reason, and has committed criminal activity, then the state must then (and only then) place the minor in a juvenile correctional facility.

On the Legal Rights of Children