My Aim is to Horrify You with Yourself


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 08-01-2017

I’ve decided to write a series of non-linear posts that I’ll later reconstruct into a more coherent argument.

My next few posts will go over some rather simple things — things that may or may not be controversial. I’ll be referring back to them along the way here and there.

For the most part, they’ll be things that most people would agree with.

The latter few will be deeply troubling.

However, at the very least, for those capable of understanding or appreciating an argument, they should all be entertaining, and more-so towards the end.


Jesus Is an Anarchist (Mirrored essay)


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 26-04-2014


There is an excellent essay called “Jesus Is an Anarchist” at

But it seems like is no longer maintained, and the essay may disappear at some point. I’m mirroring it here to ensure that it is available in at least 1 other place. When the “” graphic logo is gone, then you’ll know that it’s disappeared.

This essay is an excellent read for anyone looking to learn a bit more about Jesus, Christianity, or anarchism. You don’t need to be religious to get a lot out of this essay, and you don’t need to be an anarchist to get a lot out of it.

As a side note, anyone interested in the occult will get some pretty deep insight here. I should also note that those with a superficial understanding of the occult will likely not understand that last sentence in the least. (“Occult” means “hidden”, and Redford strips away some superficial occult layers in this essay.)

Those who are more serious about reading and understanding might do well to read along with a KJV at the ready. Please note that there is a reference in the essay that appears to be a typo.

The complete essay is available at the bottom of this page as a zipped download.


Jesus Is an Anarchist

(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford

The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can’t be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

“Under God” is the Wrong Question


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Police State, Politics, Religion | Posted on 04-09-2013

Tags: ,

V is for VoluntaryKeeping or removing “under God” from the US pledge of allegiance is simply the wrong question entirely.

SJC to weigh wording of pledge

The state Supreme Judicial Court will begin hearing arguments this week in an atheist Acton couple’s quest to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance their children say in the Acton-Boxboro Regional School District.

Why are children forced to pledge fealty to the state? Why is there a pledge at all? Isn’t it the job of the state to preserve the freedom of the people? Shouldn’t the state be pledging its allegiance to the people?

The entire “under God” debate is just an idiotic distraction from the real issue – we are all slaves to states that demand our allegiance to them, when it should be the other way around.

Christianity and Anarchism/Voluntaryism


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 31-05-2013

Tags: ,

For quite a while I’ve been mulling over how Christianity is anarchistic, and even necessarily so. Then I came across this:

When you think about it, it makes sense. Christianity doesn’t force anyone to be a Christian. The entire point is to freely choose. Freewill is paramount. This is pretty much what you get with voluntaryism – choice.

Santa Claus exists, and so does the Easter Bunny!


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Cynicism, English, Language, Philosophy, Religion | Posted on 31-12-2012

Tags: ,

Most people don’t enjoy lying, and even with good intentions, lying to children still doesn’t seem quite right. So how can you tell a kid that Santa does exist and remain truthful? It’s surprisingly easier than one might expect, and certainly makes more sense than to deny his existence.

First, it helps to understand the different ways in which we understand ‘existence’.

The first and most obvious is physical existence. The chair you are sitting on either has a physical existence or it does not, in which case you wouldn’t be sitting on it. This is in some ways rather uninteresting, unless you like arguing simply for the sake of arguing, in which case it provides a never ending source of argumentation bliss.

A second, and perhaps more interesting way that we understand existence is in terms of non-physical existence, such as when you have an idea, or your teddy bear has a cute name. You can quickly examine how people talk about these things in these simple examples:

I have an idea.

The implicit assumptions are that there is an idea that exists, and that you possess the idea.

My teddy bear’s name is Kant.

Again, the teddy bear possesses something, a name. But in order for the teddy bear to possess that, it must necessarily exist.

Now, it is pretty much trivial to change the name of your teddy bear from Kant to Immanuel. Naming is a specific case of something called an “expletive performative”, that is, the act of doing so makes it so. When you name your teddy bear, poof! It’s name is what you just gave it. Your naming made it so.

The idea of non-physical existence isn’t a radical notion, and has many examples that are firmly entrenched in society and law. The entire concept of intellectual property (IP) relies on this. Copyright and patent law assume “intangible assets”.

For example, Disney “owns” Mickey Mouse. But for Disney to have ownership, Mickey Mouse must have some kind of existence, i.e. non-physical or intangible existence.

So it should be relatively obvious that we do have another sense of the word “exist” for non-physical things.

Then how does this relate to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy? Pretty simple. They all exist. Just not as physical entities. Sure, there are physical manifestations of them. You can see a physical manifestation of Santa at the mall around Christmas time, or on a TV Christmas special, or perhaps in a Santa Claus cookie. Are they still Santa? Certainly. As manifestations of the idea of Santa.

Substitute in there Mickey Mouse or some other “fictional” character and you can get the same result.

So, yes, there is a Santa Claus. And yes, Santa Claus does exist. When you’re a very small child, your initial reaction is to assume that Santa is a physical entity, which is natural enough. Later, we often drift into disbelief. However, as thinking adults, we can grasp how Santa does exist, and how we can use the idea of Santa to make this world a better place.

For those that are wondering, yes, I believe in the existence of leprechauns, pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, talking dogs, and yes… there most certainly is a God.

The question really isn’t about whether these exist or not – the question is about what you do with their existence. Do you help make the world a better place with them? Or do you retreat into some flavour of cynicism and piss on everyone else’s parade?



Awakening and Qualia: A Lens for Perception


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 23-04-2012

For my birthday today I’d like to give everyone a gift. A gift of a different lens to perceive reality through. A lens to give you another way to understand things. A lens that I use to help me understand others better.

However, first I’d like to very quickly go over a few things that you are likely to agree and disagree on.


Take Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Confucianism (loosely), and most religions on the surface level. (I want to exclude Luciferianism/Satanism and all derivatives.) Few Muslims will admit that the Christians are “correct”, and vice versa. The same holds for pretty much and pair of religions.


How many democrats or republicans or leftists or rightist will accept the “other side”?


It’s hard to find a Mac fanboi that can tolerate anything about Windows (or Windows users). Conversely, it’s hard to find a Windows user that doesn’t loathe being looked down on and ridiculed, which often leads to teasing the Mac fanbois.


Now, just pick anything and look for the 2 different sides that “fight”. It’s easy to see how so many issues can be polarizing.


But what I’d really like to address are “sides” in “awakening”.

Among those that follow how humanity is “waking up”, you’ll find an astounding amount of diversity. Some believe in UFOs. Others in reptilian aliens that possess the elite. The Illuminati. The globalists. The eugenicists. Climate “alarmists”. Climate change “deniers”. Crystals. Pyramids. Sacred geometry. Physics. Mathematics. Free masonry. Libertarianism. The list goes on with no end in sight.

Before I get to “the lens”, I need to set the foundation with a fundamental principle: freedom. Not good. Not helping others. Not religion or Jesus or Buddha or anything else. Freedom. With a very good reason.


If you are not familiar with Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, I recommend you read up on it quickly to find out about it. Here’s a very quick summary with the 3 formulations:

  1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
  2. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
  3. Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

For Kant, there are 2 basic acts – those done out of duty (you may need to read up on Kantian Duty), and those that are not. Those that are done out of duty are morally praiseworthy, while those that are not, are not. Consequences are not relevant. Did you act out of duty or not?

However, in order for there to be any duty, i.e. the possibility of a moral act, there must be free will. Without free will, no act can be moral or good.

Now, that’s the Kantian outline, and Kant has his critics as well as advocates. One critic is Hegel, who gave us Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis, or as David Icke has termed it, Problem – Reaction – Solution. That process has been used for evil beyond comprehension. Nuff said about Hegel. Another critic was Schopenhauer who basically attempts to castrate morality by relegating it to the physical world. Morality as an explanation of the physical world is pointless when confronted with the question, “Should I or should I not?”

John Rawls goes on to expand on Kantian ethics with the “veil of ignorance” in which you make moral decisions based on not knowing who you are. e.g. Should slavery be allowed? If you could be a slave, it’s unlikely that you would say “yes”. The veil of ignorance forces you to adopt a lowest common denominator in your moral decision making, and to put yourself in the place of the person that could be adversely affected by your decision, such as a slave, a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, class, caste, etc. etc.

So, that’s Kant in a nutshell with a little added “veil of ignorance”. The most important thing to understand is that without freedom, there can be no morality. i.e. You cannot be “good” without a free will.


Now, rather than bother explaining qualia, I’m simply going to quote from Wikipedia, which is good enough for our purposes here (source):

The question hinges on whether color is a product of the mind or an inherent property of objects. While most philosophers will agree that color assignment corresponds to light frequency, it is not at all clear whether the particular psychological phenomena of color are imposed on these visual signals by the mind, or whether such qualia are somehow naturally associated with their noumena. Another way to look at this question is to assume two people (“Fred” and “George” for the sake of convenience) see colors differently. That is, when Fred sees the sky, his mind interprets this light signal as blue. He calls the sky “blue.” However, when George sees the sky, his mind assigns green to that light frequency. If Fred were able to step into George’s mind, he would be amazed that George saw green skies. However, George has learned to associate the word “blue” with what his mind sees as green, and so he calls the sky “blue”, because for him the color green has the name “blue.” The question is whether blue must be blue for all people, or whether the perception of that particular color is assigned by the mind.

This extends to all areas of the physical reality, where the outside world we perceive is merely a representation of what is impressed upon the senses. The objects we see are in truth wave-emitting (or reflecting) objects which the brain shows to the conscious self in various forms and colors. Whether the colors and forms experienced perfectly match between person to person, may never be known. That people can communicate accurately shows that the order and proportionality in which experience is interpreted is generally reliable. Thus one’s reality is, at least, compatible to another person’s in terms of structure and ratio.

The existence of colour-blindness illustrates the problem on a physical level, and is sufficient proof of the existence of the qualia problem in the physical world. It’s not difficult to extrapolate and imagine that each individual, natural person has their own “reality” or perceives their own “reality” (that is actually trivially true), and that their perceptions differ from one another, but in the physical world, behaviours are all perfectly aligned. That is to say that for any given colour, no matter how anyone perceives it, we all agree that it is called by a particular name and that it is not another colour. You can extend this to anything, be that shapes, hardness, temperature, or whatever. Any incongruities can be easily dismissed as insignificant variations of perception, such as I may have a higher tolerance for cold weather than another person, but we both agree that the weather is relatively cold.


Now, take the way that people describe things in awakening as metaphor and apply that to your own beliefs in a generous way so as to interpret them as you understand them better. Suddenly, those incongruities between beliefs seem to disappear, and you have in your grasp a way to view the world and people that brings you closer together, rather than driving you further apart.

Here’s an example. Many religions talk about demons or djinn or angels or nephilim or what-have-you. Map those words onto “alien” and all of a sudden, you have a new way to view the world.

Take what David Icke describes as “reptilians”, and map that onto “demon”. All of a sudden, we’re speaking pretty much the same language and describing the same things.

Rinse and repeat for pretty much any concept. (See conclusion below for continuation of this thought.)


Kant gives us a clear picture of morality, and the fundamental principle that underlies it is freedom. In awakening, freedom is a central tenet as without it, we cannot be moral beings. We are seeing the emergence of more and more totalitarian policies in the supposedly “free world”. America is now the “Police States of America”. If unchecked, the police state will rob humanity of its ability to be moral, of its ability to be good, of its humanity.

The New World Order is purely Luciferian and will destroy all of humanity unless we act to stop it. But we need more people to wake up and to realize what is happening.

For those of us that are awake, trying to belittle others or insist that we are “right” or that “they are wrong”, is simply not productive. We awaken in our own ways and to different things. Where I understand something over here, I am ignorant of something over there, and then again over in that other place I misunderstand something. And that’s OK as long as I move forward.


While the lens can be helpful, it needs to be used properly. Knives are useful to prepare food, but they can also be used to hurt. When using the lens, think about how things contribute to freedom. This is really the only thing that you need to think of and the only measure that you need. If something contributes to freedom, then it opens the way for the possibility of being moral. If it detracts from freedom, then it closes off any possibility of being moral.

The 2 simple questions to ask are then:

  1. How does someone else’s different idea map onto my belief structures?
  2. Does that belief promote freedom?

It’s not necessary to completely revamp an entire set of metaphysics when trying to view through the mapping lens. Remember, it’s only 1 tool to help understand differing perspectives, and to come to grips with one’s own perspectives. You may very well already have your own “lens” but talk about it differently. If you do, you can likely use it to understand my lens.



Waking Up…


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Philosophy, Religion | Posted on 13-04-2012

I need to shift some focus here. I need to contribute to helping people wake up.

In high school and university I had a brief period of being partially awake. It was short lived as it only attracted ridicule and I got sick of listening to people. Well, I’ve had brief periods since then of wakefulness, but consistently gone back to sleep when seeing that nothing had changed.

However, over the past few years, I’ve started to wake up again, and this time, things are different. There are other people that are awake. The world is changing. And that’s a good thing.

So, I’ll be posting things for the waking world, and hopefully, help wake up some other people, and hopefully help myself shake off the grogginess of sleep, and wipe the sleepers out of my eyes as well.

Waking up is as much a journey as it is epiphany.




Is God on Your Side?


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Cynicism, Philosophy, Religion | Posted on 13-12-2011

Ahem… He’s probably got better things to do than take sides.

God on your side

And why is it that it’s always people with guns or people that are fighting that insist “God” is on their side?

Julia Gillard is a Homophobic… -NSFW-


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Australia, Idiotic Statements, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 15-06-2011

Tags: , ,

Pink Triangle So I’m driving down the road today and listening to the Australian Parliament on the radio. And there’s a question for Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister.

Will Australia issue single, non-married adults outside of Australia a letter of non-impediment to marriage?

To which she gives a resounding NO. She flat out says that gays can’t get married here, and Australia won’t allow them to get married outside of Australia. WTF?

An independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, called it “petty and mean-spirited.”  (Reference: Marriage ban is “petty & mean,” MP tells Gillard)

Well… That’s a fucking understatement! Petty? Mean-spirited? Jesus… It’s fucking de-humanizing.

It’s just simply so very WRONG on so many levels.

First, if marriage is a religious institution, then what business is it of the state to interfere in religion?

If the government wants to be in the business of registering civil unions, then fine. But that still makes the Assie wankers in Canberra a bunch of homophobic douche bags.

Second, if someone is outside of a sovereign state and in another sovereign state, they should be bound by the laws of the state they are physically located in.

Trying to export laws from a sovereign state is simply unacceptable. It is not the business of the state to dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

And what business is it of the Australian government WHO an Australian gets married to outside of Australia? How does that become any of their concern or business? They can certainly be the bigoted assholes they are and not recognize the marriage, but to prevent it in the first place?

Petty and mean-spirited is the nicest way to put what happens in Canberra.

Let’s try this on for size… How about we all run around Australia and start killing all the fags! Yeah. That’s good. Heck, it’s a crime in Uganda, and the penalty is death, so why not shoot a dyke in the name of justice?

That’s idiotic! But Australia wants to do the same thing: Export laws abroad.

I’m not gay, but I have a vested interest – when a government feels justified in oppressing its people, we all lose.

Julia Gillard is a disgraceful human being. She makes me sick.

She’s the kind of person that I can imagine Diogenes of Sinope spitting in her face and saying he couldn’t find a worse place. It would be true.

Keep in mind that Australians were hunting Aborigines like animals less than 50 years ago.  Australia has a long and rich history of bigotry and oppression. Julia Gillard only adds to that.

Disgusted in Melbourne,

Ryan Smyth

Little Old Lady Church Jokes


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Religion | Posted on 22-02-2011


Oh God! Oh God! Oh God! This is funny! I got this from my mother. Be careful as you may just pee your pants laughing!

Church Ladies With typewriters . . .

They’re Back! Those wonderful Church Bulletins! Thank God for church ladies with typewriters. These sentences (with all the BLOOPERS) actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:

The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.


The sermon this morning: ‘Jesus Walks on the Water.’ The sermon tonight: ‘Searching for Jesus.’


Ladies, don’t forget the rummage sale. It’s a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.


Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say ‘Hell’ to someone who doesn’t care much about you.


Don’t let worry kill you off – let the Church help.


Miss Charlene Mason sang ‘I will not pass this way again,’ giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.


For those of you who have children and don’t know it, we have a nursery downstairs.


Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.


Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.


A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow..


At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be ‘What Is Hell?’ Come early and listen to our choir practice.


Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.


Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.


Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered..


The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.


Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM – prayer and medication to follow.


The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.


This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.


Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM . All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B. S. Is done.


The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the Congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.


Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM . Please use the back door.


The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM .. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.


Weight Watchers will meet at 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use large double door at the side entrance.


The Associate Minister unveiled the church’s new campaign slogan last Sunday: ‘I Upped My Pledge – Up Yours.