Ashes of the Wake Album Review

Yes, I do realize I am doing this 11 years late. But in return all must realize I am doing this at an age where I can do it effectively.

So, like any other review of any other thing, I will do it like this: negatives, positives, and final verdict


  1. I do like instrumental-only songs but the title song did have a few lines from a few people in it, and I grew up thinking instrumental means no words at all, referring to Marilyn Manson song “Seizure of Power” as evidence


  1. Laid to Rest was a really joyful introduction to this album!
  2. Hourglass has this immensely fun 25 second sequence after its first minute!
  3. The song “Now You’ve Got Something”, as I shorten it to for the purposes of this review, is near-perfect inspiration for any one of my comic book villains [Dark Fantasy comics they are]
  4. The Faded Line is just another source of tons of inspiration for many of my Earth Analog’s villains!
  5. Omerta was so fun to listen to, especially as it planted an idea for a quote for one of my main five Heroines into my head!
  6. The song “Blood of the Scribe” was plenty decent for a song I don’t listen to as often.
  7. I ADORE the song “One Gun”, mainly due to how it starts as far as instrumentals go!
  8. The song “Break You” may be a little hard to understand lyrically without a lyrical guide, but is otherwise a decent song.
  9. the song “What I’ve Become” has the best guitar solo I have ever heard from a band that is Not Disturbed.
  10. The song “Remorse is for the Dead” is an absolute joy for a wrap up to the album, except for the last half-minute.

Final Verdict

My final Score for Ashes of the Wake is… a 91, a highly gorgeous album! Any fellow metal-lover that has not been through this whole album already will love this album! Thank you all,



Why I don’t vote Libertarian despite being very strongly libertarian

I retook the political quiz of “ISideWith.Com” with absolutely no add-your-own-stance answers whatsoever and it tells me I side 82% with the Libertarian Party, 80% with the Republican Party, 85% with Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul and 90% with other Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio. The site’s ideological chart also told me my beliefs are both Strongly libertarian and Moderately rightist, meaning I support Free market capitalism, small government & social liberties.

So what has this motivated me to do? It has motivated me to explain why I do not vote Libertarian when I side with them on all Economy issues, all Education issues, all Environment & Science issues, all Medical issues, all Domestic Policy issues, most Immigration issues, and all Social issues? Well, its not about me disagreeing with the LP on 43% of Immigration issues.

Rather, its the fact that the only things I can agree with the LP on in Foreign Policy are Free Trade and National Sovereignty from the United Nations.

Matter a fact, of the 73,000,000 libertarians there are in America including myself, the LP’s rhetoric of Free-Trade-Only-Until-Attacked-on-US-soil is only representative of a slight majority of us as of 2011 AD. That is, 55% of us support a foreign policy of mostly ignoring the world around us and emphasizing Stability in the Greater Middle East even if there’s less Laissez-faire. I myself am among the 34% of US libertarians that support a foreign policy of being highly active in the world and emphasizing Laissez-faire in the Greater Middle East even if there’s less Stability. So the libertarians that the LP caters to in foreign policy are 40,000,000 Americans while the libertarians I am one of are 25,000,000 Americans. Yes, there is a third group [11% of us] who either don’t know what foreign policy they support or are not public about it.

The other thing is when it comes to Factions in the US Republican Party, I just happen to simultaneously support Economic and Social policies from the Libertarian faction and support Foreign policies from the Neoconservative faction, but neither one in a puritanical sense. I have no time for puritanical approaches to anything, as is part of my aspirations of becoming a Scholar & museum director for the Dinosaur-related Sciences.

GOP Libertarians & What they have on me

When it comes to ideas from the GOP’s Libertarian faction, I love and share their emphasis on Free Markets and Permissive Society, but I firmly oppose their Noninterventionism in foreign policy. However, I adore and share the GOP Libertarian faction’s hostility to government social spending, regulation [especially Nanny Laws], and current income tax code. I join the Libertarian faction in fighting Conservative faction homophobia, Conservative faction transphobia, and most of all to me Conservative faction misogyny. I respect both sides of the Libertarian faction in the abortion debate, I therefore see it as a matter of keeping government out of the issue and just letting it be, along with all other Medical and Healthcare issues, 100% privatized. I join the GOP libertarians in opposing Gun Control as a fear-based policy that ignores such facts as the quarter-million gun uses that prevent sexual assaults. Every year. I also join GOP libertarians in favoring Unlimited Free Speech. I unite with the GOP Libertarians in pushing to reduce taxes, government budgets, nanny laws among other regulations, and the national debt. Like the GOP’s libertarian faction I also seek to privatize entire activities run by the government, but I specifically think anything not about foreign policy should automatically be privatized, as in left up to Individual Choice & Individual Liberty. I side with the GOP Libertarians who call for the FairTax to replace the IRS and the current tax code and I support Unlimited Free Trade as they do, and like them I support making Path To Citizenship easier on Liberty-seeking immigrants but harder on Tyranny-promoting immigrants. As GOP Libertarians are more critical than any other GOP faction of Fiat Money policy and Military Spending, so too do I support Hard Money against Fiat Money and condemn the current US military budget for being 40% or less of what I think it should be. And like the GOP libertarians I also vastly oppose Drafting and call for National Service to be purely Voluntary. When it comes to marriage I want it 100% privatized, just like much of the GOP’s Libertarian faction.

GOP Neoconservatives & What they have on me

Okay, even though Foreign Policy is my political strong suite, the GOP’s Neoconservative faction is going to be noticeably harder for me to have giant common ground with, so allow me to spend some time comparing and contrasting myself with them. Like them I also promote an Interventionist foreign policy, except they love going to military action first and Free Trade never. They enjoy nation-building and creating Democratic Governments in place of Tyrannical governments. I on the other hand would rather America avoid nation building, and I would rather we rely firstly on Free Trade to replace Tyrannical Governments with Free Market economies with No social controls, and only use military action as “Plan B”. The GOP’s Neoconservative faction is also economically Centrist, whereas me I am very strongly economically Libertarian, almost to the point of Economic Anarchist [my only difference on economic anarchists being I support there being a Federal Republic institutionalized to punish & prevent violent crimes]. Neoconservatives are highly supportive of Israel, but I go so far as to celebrate Israel’s 65% Atheist & other fellow Nonreligious majority of population and call for US respect of Israeli sovereignty from the rest of the Earth around it. For example I don’t want America spending money on any nation’s military but America’s. I agree with the Neoconservatives on Unilateralism, the exception being that I am actually highly favorable to OECD and a tiny bit favorable NATO when it comes to alternatives to the United Nations [UN]. GOP Neoconservatives supportive of regarding non-UN multinationals in place of UN, however, pick NATO over OECD. I agree there is a primary moral position for the US military to act unilaterally, but they think it is to Nation-Build for Democracy whereas I think that moral position is to destroy Genocidal governments over the genocides they are conducting, and then I believe the military should leave immediately so that We The People can resume doing Free Trade with the foreign civilian population. Also, on domestic things, Neoconservatives believe religion should control how government operates while I myself despise religion but believe that it should be allowed to exist while also believing it should not impact government decisions. They believe Liberty to be secondary to Security, and I am the exact opposite: Favoring a Liberty-focused Interventionism as opposed to the Security-focused Interventionism that GOP Neoconservatives desire for America. The GOP’s Neoconservative faction is also highly supportive of complicated Trickle Down economics, but I prefer the simplistic Laissez-faire, “Pure Capitalism” economic science favored by the GOP’s libertarian faction and by the ‘free market anarchist’ psychographic, to an extent compatible with the Rule of Law and with a Federation of Republics, that is. And unlike most in the GOP’s Neoconservative faction, I believe America’s own National Debt is the biggest enemy on Earth of America and the biggest ally of the Two Salafi Empires [Iran + Iraq = the Shia-Salafi Empire, the rest of the Greater Middle East {minus Turkey & Israel} is the Sunni-Salafi Empire]. The only Neoconservative icon I can name who’d agree with me on this claim I have to offer happens to be the 2016 GOP Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. GOP Libertarian Rand Paul and Libertarian Party person Gary Johnson are the only other politicians I can name who realize this. The GOP’s Neoconservative faction, in the case of most, is for an Eagle-minded approach to foreign Tyranny where we use military force right off the bat against them and then we keep them overseas for decades to build a Smaller, Electoral Big Government. I however prefer an Owl-minded approach that has America using Free Trade as its primary tool in ending foreign Tyrannies, and only using US military force against Tyrannies currently conducting a genocide, like Sudan for example. And Owl-minded is a metaphor not just for the wisdom of a better foreign policy, but also a proposal of conducting Night Attacks on the Genocide-states among the world’s Tyrannies instead of attacking in their Morning halves of the days. These metaphors are based on how Eagles and Owls are both very large and immensely intelligent, but Owls are much wiser. Most GOP Neoconservatives believe in spending Foreign Aid jibber jabber all over the Greater Middle East, but I prefer Free Trading with the enslaved civilians of that region without any oversight from their slavers, and not giving even a penny per year of foreign aid to any Non-US nations, no matter whether they are Good or Evil.

What any of this makes me

One may think I have just a “Neoconservative foreign policy”, but think again: I am far from Noninterventionist but I am not a Neocon Warmonger either. I am simply one of those 25,000,000 American libertarians that is for a Liberty-focused foreign policy that relies mainly on Free Trade to put away Tyranny and keeps a highly-funded, all-volunteer military that stays at peace and ardently respecting of the Free-Trade-First approach of its employer until it detects an establishment Tyranny conducting a genocide anywhere on the Earth. Then us 34-percent in the libertarian philosophy movement believe our military should go in, end the genocide, then LEAVE so the Free Trade can be restored organically and with maximum harmony. This is Libertarianism’s Forgotten debate – the debate over whether Tyrannical governments should be allowed to stay in power VS if we should rely primarily on Free Trade to get them evicted from reality by their respective populations. The debate over whether we should just let Genocides proceed as-are or if we should forcefully END them and THEN make our military COME HOME right from the get-go of ending the genocide. These are both the Foreign Policy debates in Libertarianism. The reason you only ever hear this Middle Ground moderately-interventionist foreign policy offer from 8% of America is because other Center-right political factions are so rhetorical that they see our factual thinking and think that for some kind of warrant to make us seem like we don’t exist.

There is a word for my kind of Libertarian that is Hardcore Libertarian and Very Minimally Neocon with many Liberty-loving exceptions, and that word is Neolibertarian. Similar word to Neoconservative, I know. But I wrote a gigantic part of this thing for how and why my fellow neolibertarians and I are not neoconservatives. I believe I also addressed how and why we only encompass 8% of the public even though averages of 65% and 75% of the public side with us on Society and Economy respectively, and even though fully 74% of America can get behind the Neolibertarian policy on US military action of ONLY using US military force to stop genocides, according to a 2004 report on American public opinions on the Omar al-Bashir regime of Sudan.

What about in Partisan and Electoral Terms?

You know how some people identify their politics by putting ideology name like a first name and political party choice like a last name? Well, according to that logic, I am a “Neolibertarian Independent”.

So, my summary of my ideology as best Parks & Recreation character ever Ron Swanson would probably put it:

Neolibertarianism is mainly about a Liberty-focused Foreign Policy and should never be placed under the umbrella terms “Liberal” or “Conservative”, but always under the umbrella term “Libertarian”.

And who do I vote for most often? You only need to know I am an Independent at heart.

Thank you all from a Neolibertarian Independent with absolutely No religious affiliation whatsoever,


Why The United States Should Spread Capitalism

By Capitalism in this post, I am referring to the laissez-faire kind with no social controls.

Let me elaborate on what legit Capitalism is about.

Economically, Capitalism ensures economic transactions between private entities are completely free from government interferences like regulations, tariffs, subsidies, and entitlements.

Socially, Capitalism declares the following:

  1. The Individual is the primary unit of society
  2. The Individual has an organic right to civil liberties
  3. Physical Nature is a self-regulator
  4. Corporations are government entities and should therefore be monitored by individuals to make sure they do not disrupt the self-regulatory nature of economy, society & culture

In Foreign Policy, Capitalism enacts Free Trade, the best tool to use to force Authoritarian governments to reform to Libertarian ones. Now – as Foreign Policy is my strong suite, I will first speak of Free Trade then of what to do when all Free Trade options have been exhausted.

Here are the reasons America must Spread Capitalism to End Salafism:

Reason #1 – Unrestricted Free Trade should be the US’s primary tool in the Global War on Tyrants!

As the Cold War proved to us from 1941 to 1991, Capitalism and Free Trade lead to weakening of Genocidal Empires by means of turning their slaves and their still-alive victims on to libertarian and/or objectivist ideals, and motivating them to revolt [in most cases] peacefully. Free Trade with populations [not with governments] motivates enslaved populations to commit themselves to Civil Disobedience against their slavers.

  1. Free Trade with Korea led to the weakening of the North Korea regime to a point where they were no longer willing to keep trying to annex South Korea.
  2. Free Trade with Japan is much of what allows the Japanese monarchy of today to stay Liberty-focused
  3. Free Trade with European nations is much of what allowed them to eventually throw off the Soviet Empire in 1991 and become the continent of freedom-focused secularism it is today.
  4. Free Trade with Israeli population is most of how they were and are able to stay in tact so strongly and for so long as for them to have the blessing of their Nonreligious demographic growing to 65% of the population.

Foreign Aid, free money for other nations, will NOT solve the problems we know as Tyrants. Rather they go straight to Governments, therefore leading the tyrannical ones to spend our money on assailing us for us simply treating women, my fellow nonreligious, my fellow evolutionists and others like human beings.

Reason #2 – Foreign Aid is the Ally of the Salafi Empire. Free Trade is the Enemy of the Salafis.

This is why I say Foreign Aid is an enemy of the Capitalist Federation [America, Israel, Britain, Japan, Germany, and the rest of OECD] and the ally of the Salafi Empire, who by the way has been around for 1383 years! Because Foreign Aid is always for governments, while Free Trade is always for populations.

Foreign Aid also restrains the populations of the nations it is directed at the governments of, to an extent, by making the nation dependent on a currency that is completely foreign to them, as opposed to them being able to set a Hard Money Standard based on the most abundant precious metal or precious gem of their land. Granted, thats if they are willing but that is an Economy topic and this post is about Foreign Policy.

You can argue all you wish that Foreign Aid is a matter of giving it to countries that are actually our friends. But I still oppose foreign aid in general. And, given the above factual thoughts, why would I make any exceptions?

Legit, the US currently gives something like $18-and-a-half billion to the Salafi Empire and another $half-billion to the Fahiq Empire {Iran & Iraq, name coined by me based on the Arabic word “Fahiq” for “Jury” being part of the current Iranian government’s name for itself [Vilayat-e Fahiq, “Guardianship of the Jurists“]}. Every year. Legit ally Israel on the other hand? Just $3 billion. But with Israel, we need to replace foreign aid with respect for its sovereignty and refusal to ever dictate how it defends itself. With these two Theocracy Empires, however, they are vastly opposed to every principle that Libertarianism, Objectivism & the USA have in common, to a point where they are spending our tax dollars on their conspiracies to kill our population’s entire Nonreligious 23%, among other Non-muslim and also libertarian muslim demographics.

Reason #3 – Capitalism Feeds; Salafism Kills.

The Salafi Empire has a very long, One thousand, Three hundred and Eighty-three year history of sparking genocides, slaveries, terrorisms, and famines all over the Earth. The Capitalist System, on the other hand, does not create slavery or poverty or any of the above negativities. On the contrary, capitalism actually FREES people to decide for themselves how to prosper and how to do so without resorting to any violent crimes; including, if a person has any interest in making money off her creation or not.

Capitalism is Moral and Heroic because it teaches & preaches that people ought to be free to control their own lives in a level operating field, where all transactions are voluntary and happen ever so naturally. Capitalism also gets its Heroism from ensuring that the government cannot interfere except to punish violent crime or property crime.

Salafism is Immoral and Villainous because it convinces people that one must take a literalist, legalist and puritanical approach to the Koran and that one can commit any violent crime as long as it was done for the faith or for the deity. It also motivates governments to execute indigestible numbers of their own population. It motivated Pakistan in 1971 to murder 3,000,000 of its own in 9 months.


So what am I getting at with all said an done? I am answering the real question of US foreign policy today:

How should the United States Spread Capitalism?”

My answer; is we should rely mainly on Free Trade while still maintaining a highly funded, all-volunteer military should Free Trade not be effective, though Free Trade usually is effective as made evident in its 5-decade track record starting in 1941. Thanks all,


Speaking of Flags

This is my thought on the debate of the Confederate Flag and whether it should be allowed to exist and on whether people should be allowed to depict it in a pride-motivated manner.

So… I have seen plenty of debate in regard to this flag; some say it is about hatred while others claim its about heritage. As for me, I do not side with either side of the debate and instead propose a smart question:

Why is this a political issue? This debate is not promoting Rugged Individualism in a Permissive Society, it is not emphasizing Laissez-faire in a Free Market, it is not discussing the superiority of a Federal Republic over a Unitary Monarchy, this debate doesn’t even discuss the 1383-year-old threat the Salafi Empire throw at Liberty, this debate is just the definition of obvious Brainwasher.

Firstly, let me say I hate racism because it is pessimistic, tyrannical, and genocidal; and looking at Anthropology it has regrettably been around since the dawn of civilization, if not well before that. So to call the Confederate flag “the racism flag” is to ignore other racisms from all over human history – the Arab racism against Non-Arabs that has been commonplace in Salafi politics and Baath Party politics since the births of both of these political groups [7th century AD and World War II era respectively]. It would be a similar thing as calling the Third Reich flag “The racism flag”, but not the same as the two governments behaved very differently and the severity of each ones’ tyranny was radically worlds apart.

Which beings me to my belief about flags that do not represent a currently living real world tyranny: You should be allowed to display it on any lands and/or objects that you legally own! I do not care if you are displaying the Timurid Empire flag of 12th Century AD Persia, the Confederate States of America flag of 19th Century AD America, the Red Eye flag of that fictional tyranny from Middle-earth we know as Mordor, or the Dark Elven flag of Naggaroth from the other fictional universe called the Warhammer Fantasy Battle setting; as long as it is strictly on objects [such as vessels you ride or drive to get places] and places [such as houses or yards] that are largely or entirely your property.

I for example own the property I live on in part [doing much of the chores and bringing home roughly 70% of the groceries] and I have the flag of one of the most soulless, villainous, Revenge-addicted civilizations in Fantasy-fiction [the Easterlings, the Men of Rhun from Middle-earth] hanging next to my bedroom door and I don’t care that the Easterlings are villains because they are fictional! And even if the events of Middle-earth happened in actual Medieval times [which they did NOT], their Federation of Monarchies [federal monarchy] would have died something like 600+ years ago!

Now, for all I have said, can a land owner refuse to allow a particular long-dead tyranny flag or fictional tyranny flag on HER or HIS owned land? Absolutely, so long as he or she has the consent of other owners of the same land [if any]. Which brings me to why I write this now: Because this morning I allowed some repair people to repair some damage the condo complex I live in was suffering from. And the person I lived with wanted them to not be near our land or do any repairs to any damage because one of them had a car bearing a Confederacy Flag, and as for me I was more concerned with whatever job they needed to do to better the condo units.

So… the above is all I got. Thanks,


Drastically Changing my 2016 Voting Intentions

Hello everyone! I thought long and hard about my support for Marco Rubio and contrasted his policy ideas with the policy ideas of Rand Paul.

After re-examining my results on, I checked on of the source references on the profile claiming I side 77% with Rand Paul. It was the one about military spending. Turns out the source says the opposite of what claims:

The site claims he supports military budget cuts, but the source – a Time Magazine link – says he wants to raise military spending to seven-sixths of current level. So not only does the isidewith site lie to me in certain aspects but also I may have to vote for Rand instead. Gotta do every little thing myself, don’t I? Plus I view economy as the only thing more important than foreign policy, and I side most often with Rand on Economy.

Not only this, but he gives “Yes” answers to most of the other foreign policy question I give “Yes” answers to. And there are a good deal of foreign policy questions that Rand & I both give “No” answers to. Not to mention, I read up on the both of them on Wikipedia and evidently not only are Rand’s political views their own article, but also they are much more similar to mine.

Finally, I looked at the Rand Paul campaign site, just the Issues pages and a bunch of the subpages, and… He’s got much of it right! So I, the Legendary Deist, will Stand With Rand for president!

Thank you people.


A Federal Republic Is Superior to a Unitary Republic

As you all may know, I am one of those libertarians that prefers a Republic over a Monarchy, so basically that makes me a Classical liberal [as in the 14th to 19th Century AD {and Old World} definition of liberal].

When it comes to Power Structure, though, I differ from [most] Old World classical liberals in that I favor a Federal Republic as opposed to a Unitary Republic.

Why is this? Guess what, it is due to the power structure of a Federation shrinking government power far more vastly than the power structure of a Unitary government, or Union.

The Federation, in this case, breaks its land into a series of provinces and cities, each of which is largely its own Republic but one of them is the national Republic that all the other Republics see as the core Republic.

The more provinces and cities the land has to it, the more different Republics are set up and therefore the smaller share of the same power each Republic has. And in a Classically liberal Republic, this would mean even shares of a very minimal amount of power, as in only enough power for the province and city governments to provide Homeland security needs like Police Work and Border Security and for the nation government to provide military defense and a tough foreign policy of Moral Clarity regarding national consistency with generally Objectivist principles. Or at least, in a proper Federal Republic this is how political power is handled.

The United States for example has 50 provinces called States with their own State governments and 30,000 cities, towns and villages whose governments are called Local governments. And then there is the Federal government, so that is a total of America being a Federation of 30,051 Republics. And 30,050 of these live under 1 and 30,000 of these are divided up into living within 50, some State Republics ruling more Local Republics than other States rule.

Arizona for example is a State Republic that rules 91 different Local Republics, while my current state of Connecticut has 169+ different Local Republics under its State Republic level leadership.

As a general rule, to, Unitary States are generally stricter societies with less laissez-faire in economy than Federal States have been in the millennia of Earth History we know as human history. Contrast America with Israel for example, giving Israel one of the only legit criticisms possible for it [the only other ones being its Flawed Democracy status in Civil Liberties, its Mostly Free status {as opposed to Free} in economy, and the fact that it has mandatory national service {drafting}]. Israel gets itself lesser social and economic freedom mainly from its senseless Draft and from its Unitary structure. America is a much freer Mostly Free economy and is a Full Democracy with only 19 or 20 other nations doing Civil Liberties better than we do! Mainly, you guessed it, Federation being the morally superior [and factually superior] Power Structure to Unitary State.

Thank you all for learning yet more matter tonight,


Neolibertarians Differ [part 2] From the Tea Party Movement

Welcome to Part Two of the “Neolibertarians Differ From” trilogy

This time I speak of how we are not the Tea Party.

  1. The Tea Party has no real agenda, and seems to thrive on thinking people who can never compromise with each other can work as a team. Us Neolibertarians are not like this. Rather, we have an agenda and we can compromise with each other provided we are all on the same team [which we are].
  2. Neolibertarians like me are all about Gradualism, the ideal of making of progress gradually; Reformism, the ideal of relying on Reforms instead of Revolts; Logic; Reason; and Factual Thinking. We do not believe a ‘Second American Revolution’ will cause anything but room for the Salafis and other tyrannical empires from the MENA to exploit the potential civil war for them to annex us. Most of the Tea Party does not think this factually. Instead they rely on emotion, rhetoric, and overt passion
  3. We vastly oppose the Tea Party in regard to foreign policy. Most of them are highly faithful in the fiction that America cannot create libertarian world order, and they favor appeasement when things are not going our way. Neolibertarians like me on the other hand, believe we must fight Tyrannical Empires until their wills and governments are broken, and we assert that the solution to battles not going our way is to start calling dignity secondary to Tactical Brilliance. The other foreign policy ideal of [most of] the Tea Party is they are completely okay with targeting civilians and civilian property in battlefields, while us Neolibertarians view this kind of disregard for Western Morality as a disturbing and perverted disregard.
  4. Us Neolibertarians also despise the Tea Party indifference to Genocidal Empires around the world. When Bashar Assad gassed 2000 of his own civilians to death and escalated his campaign against liberty Syrians to a point of genocide, the Tea Party advocated just letting him finish his campaign his way. And we were the first political faction to call for the Omar al-Bashir regime of Sudan to be ended over al-Bashir’s Darfur genocide, while the Tea Party was not around until 6 years after said news.
  5. The Tea Party believes GOP candidates who are not Tea Party members to be “establishment Republicans” and that those who are one of them are inherently not establishment. Neolibertarians like me, however, see Republican platform conformist Republicans as the only ‘establishment Republicans’, and we are the same with other Parties and their candidates: Libertarian Party platform conformists [especially LP foreign policy conformists] are “establishment Libertarians”, Democrat Party platform conformists are “establishment Democrats”, and so on and so forth. The only people we see as Non-establishment candidates are those running as Nonpartisan, aka as Independents, as they have Individual platforms not compliant with any major or minor party platforms.

So there you have it. How exactly we are not “tea party libertarians”. I hope you learned something today, and thank you for your time,


PS the final part sees me decipher us from Objectivists.

Neolibertarians Differ [part 1] From Neoconservatives

Here I am, to set the difference between the two Neo’s in Center-right politics.

This to debunk common myths about Neolibertarians that falsely accuse us of being Neocons

And yes, I will do another post about the long list of ways in which we VASTY DISAGREE with the Tea Party.

But for now let us stick to how we differ from Neoconservatives.

  1. First, and foremost, we believe far more in the Spread of Capitalism than in the Spread of Democracy, and our evidence is the proven track record the spread of capitalism has of five decades, half a century! Actually, including World War II, its more like 70 years or seven decades. Whereas Neocons just want to have faith that building a Democracy in place of a toppled tyranny will somehow work out for all.
  2. Like Neocons us Neolibs also strongly support Israel, but unlike them we believe in respecting its sovereignty and we refuse to tell it how to interact with its neighbors
  3. We too supported the End of Saddam, but unlike Neocons we profoundly disagree with the US government’s decision at the time to build a Democratic government and believe we should have been building a Free Market economy with no social controls instead.
  4. Regarding Unilateral actions, just because we agree with Neocons on their support for Unilateralism does not make us opposed to membership in Multinationals; actually, we do find some [namely OECD and NATO] to be acceptable multinationals to be a member of.
  5. Should Government bail out failing banks and failing markets like it did in 2008 to get us into the economic crisis of that year? The Neoconservatives say yes and us Neolibertarians say NO.
  6. Whereas Neoconservatives believe that government should “trickle down” by taxing rich people at lower rates and poor people at higher rates, we oppose trickling down and call for government to make either a flat tax [tax all incomes equally], or to sign the FairTax into law [no income tax but a national sale tax included in sale price, as opposed to adding sale tax atop sale price]
  7. Neoconservatives believe that the Debt Ceiling should be raised in place of taxes being raised, where us Neolibertarians believe that to pick one for raising and one for lowering is pure dishonesty, and we call for the national debt and the deficit to be reversed into surpluses.
  8. Neoconservatives believe that Universal Health Care should be a law connected to private companies, Neolibertarians on the other hand believe healthcare should be 100% left to individuals and their doctors
  9. Neolibertarians like me are just as consistently pro-choice on women’s medical decisions as Objectivists are, but we disagree with Objectivists on Gender roles [we support Individualist feminism as opposed to the Left-Wing misandry-loving Statist feminism that is common today]. Meanwhile, Neoconservatives are calling for government to ban women from making their own medical decisions on their own
  10. Neoconservatives are for a vastly Homophobic and Transphobic marriage policy, while Neolibertarians like me are for highly supportive of an Objectivist marriage policy of abolishing 100% of marriage laws and replacing them with Nothing.
  11. Neocons and Neolibs are opposites and antonyms when it comes to Religion playing a role in politics. A true neolibertarian will join the objectivists in advocating separation of church and state, declaring the Religious Right a danger to the Nation’s Independence, protesting the idea of displaying religious symbols in government facilities, calling for the White House Office of Faith-Based Partnerships to be abolished, and we especially join objectivists in refusing to let Creationism be taught as science. Neoconservatives are the note-for-note opposite of all of the above, opposing objectivism in every religion-in-politics subtopic you can fathom
  12. Any consistent Neolibertarian will tell you that Civil Liberties and National Security are equally important, and must be unwavering allies of each other. Well, guess what? They are, and they must always be allied. Neoconservatives do not agree, they believe National Security is the important one of the two about as rhetorically as the Libertarian party believes Civil Liberties to be more important than National Security. Us Neolibertarians see this particular either-or as a false either-or with no basis in evidence
  13. Lastly, we differ from Neoconservatives by believing that Border Security should be left to bordering States and that they must learn to differentiate Legal immigration from Illegal immigration. Neocons do not agree with this kind of filtration and believe all immigrants should be banned, Legal or illegal.

So there you have it! The 13 ways Neolibertarians like me differ from Neoconservatives.

So, to people saying Neolibertarians are Neoconservatives, here is 13 ways you are lying and also 13 ways you could be telling the truth by saying that we are “similar to Objectivists but not synonymous due to differences on a few issue stances”.

Part 2 sees me differentiate Neolibertarian from Tea Party, and Part 3 of this trilogy called “Neolibertarians Differ From”.

Thank you all,


Using Science to decide Ireland’s role in World Affairs

As an aspiring zoologist of Irish ethnicity, I figured I would use the scientific method to figure out what role in the world the Republic of Ireland has. This begins with defining the Scientific Method:

  1. Question
  2. Observation
  3. Hypothesis
  4. Testing [in form of Research]
  5. Analysis
  6. Conclude
  7. Publish

So, now, here we are with figuring out Ireland’s role in today’s world. Let us begin!


What is the role in today’s World Affairs of the Republic of Ireland?


  1. Ireland is mainly having a Nonintervention foreign policy [NOT to be confused with Isolationist]
  2. However Ireland did allow the US military to use Irish airports temporarily in preparation to end the Saddam regime
  3. Ireland partakes in multinational organizations, this includes the OECD.
  4. Ireland is a Full Democracy [scoring a 8.72 out of 10 in civil liberties, political freedom and pluralism]
  5. Ireland’s economy is Mostly Free [scoring a 76.6 out of 100 on guarding the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests]
  6. This makes the politics of Ireland to be that of a Classically liberal Republic.
  7. Ireland also has a Nonreligious population of 44% of the 4,600,000; that’s 2 million Irish
  8. Today’s world affairs are characterized by a ‘Salafi Empire’ composed of the MENA [Middle East & North Africa] nations that use a puritanical approach to the Sunni version of the Koran as their Constitution; and who sponsors Salafi Jihads around the world
  9. Every Classically liberal Republic is a target of the Salafi empire
  10. Every Classically liberal Monarchy [i.e. Britain, Sweden, etc.] is a target of the Salafi empire
  11. A smaller Legalist-Literalist-Puritanical Shia Empire made of Iran & Iraq [equivalent name to Salafi name unknown] also wages Jihad on every Classically liberal Republic & Classically liberal Monarchy in the world
  12. The Salafis and their Shia-supremacist equivalent hate Nonreligious more than any other theological group Jihad is currently being waged on
  13. Israel is the only Classically liberal Republic in the entire MENA region
  14. Fine Gael is the Irish Party of Expanding Freedom and pursuing Independence both domestically and overseas, and of pro-Israel attitudes


If Ireland is a Classically liberal Republic, and Israel is also a Classically liberal Republic, and both the Sunni Empire and the Shia Empire despise Classically liberal Republics enough to repeatedly attempt genocide on all non-Muslims and all libertarian muslims; then perhaps it is best for the Republic of Ireland to give the Republic of Israel backing against the Sunni and Shia Empires and to do what it can militarily to deprive these empires of one member-nation at a time.


[Research into Irish foreign policy indicates Ireland is all about Independence in foreign policy]

[Research also indicating that Irish Government confuses Independence with Neutrality]

[Research proves the second pointer with their military’s unwillingness to act on anything Unilaterally]

[Research proving Irish top National Self-interests to be Independence at 1 and Liberty at 2]


Hmm… I see some basic inconsistencies in Irish foreign policy. They have Irish Independence as their #1 National Self Interest, yet they do not take on any Humanitarian missions Unilaterally. They are Neutral on the Global War On Theocracy [GWOT] even though domestically they despise theocracy and prove this by keeping Separation of Church and State a fact of life and by allowing 44% of itself to be Nonreligious.


So the Republic of Ireland wants a foreign policy its largest emphasis being on Independence. No problem. They can therefore pursue the Spread of Individualism and the Spread of Capitalism Unilaterally. They should support their fellow Classical liberal Republic [Israel] in the MENA and should work very closely with Taiwan, Japan and South Korea at addressing North Korea’s evils; but all of this with ultimate respect for allies’ independences. This includes perhaps not giving any foreign aid money and it is guaranteed to mean Ireland ONLY dictating how Ireland interacts with nations in other regions. For example, Ireland can pursue Irish Independence with ultimate respect for Israeli Independence by not having a word to say of how Israel itself interacts with Israel’s neighbors.

What Am I saying here?

I am saying Ireland’s role in World Affairs is to pursue eternal Irish Independence by Unilaterally replacing tyrannical Empire governments with Laissez-faire. Like the US, Ireland also has Laissez-faire reforms to make to its domestic politics on top of the above, but… here is the short, short version of the Conclusion:

In order for Ireland to prove itself out for Irish Independence it absolutely must Unilaterally pursue permanent Irish Independence by quelling guaranteed threats to Irish Independence, at the sole discretion of the Republic of Ireland.

Having made my point, all I have left to say is this: If you read all of this and live in Ireland, congratulations and thank you for hearing out one of your ethnic kin on a tough political topic. It is vastly appreciated,


Another Fantasy Comics Progress Report

I have recently discovered that hand-printing comics by hand would be too expensive and would take me too long and too much effort to save up to do. I also recently discovered that to patent my work and free myself of having to keep the names and other fine details secret will cost me $85.

So, I shall save up for that.

Then I will go ahead and sell the comics differently than I had initially planned instead. I am keeping the price a secret for now, but all you need to know is I will save up some of what I earn from digital copies to eventually start self-publishing physical copies.

Did I miss anything? Ah yes, and I will be using Warhammer Fantasy books including the “Warhammer Armies Project” alternative army books as guides for the armies of my comic books, and NOT as scripts. Thank you all,