‘Not PC’ is New Zealand Libertarian and devout Objectivist Peter Cresswell’s blog.
Pete was Editor of Lindsay Perigo’s ‘Free Radical magazine’.
Below is an article I wrote about the Race crisis in Fiji.
I am putting it on my blog for reference purposes, yet am grateful to PC for having it on his blog too, and a link to Not PC can be found in our Blogroll sidebar.
Subsequent history has vindicated my position.
George Speight’s Racist revolution in Fiji.
The Right of Revolution: In Praise of Commodore Frank Bainimarama.
by Tim Wikiriwhi
The latest coup in Fiji by Commodore Frank Bainimarama has highlighted for me the corruption of so-called “indigenous rights,” a recipe for division which is pedalled around the globe by the corrupt socialists of the UN. Four coups in twenty years is hardly a good look, but the instability is itself a product of racist laws that makes instability inevitable.
Bainimarama’s coup is the complete opposite of the previous three coups, each of which attempted to establish absolutely the UN’s apartheid agenda for indigenous rights. Whereas Rabuka and Speight were acting to cement the racist laws that raised indigenous Fijians over other Fijians, Bainimarama is a defender of the principle of equality.
Bainimarama said he was compelled to act against the government because corruption had flourished under Qarase, whom he himself appointed after the 2000 coup, and because of proposed laws that would grant pardons to plotters in a 2000 coup and hand lucrative land rights to indigenous Fijians at the expense of the large ethnic Indian minority.
“Qarase betrayed our trust when he went back to team up with the very people who caused the political instability of 2000,” Bainimarama said. The new electoral system he pledged to implement would ensure that all votes cast were equal, and the present race-based election system abolished. This requires indigenous Fijians to vote for Fijian candidates, ethnic Indians for Indian candidates, and others for a third group of candidates. “We want to rid the constitution of provisions that facilitate and exacerbate the politics of race”, Bainimarama confirmed at the outset.
In seeking to put a permanent end to the racist Fijian electoral system and to permanently abolish laws that grant favouritism to indigenous racists, he is in my estimation worthy of praise and support reserved for the greatest benefactors of mankind.
Apathy and submission to injustice via political delusions
A basic principle of justice is that all law should be colour-blind; that everyone, regardless of race, should be equal before the law. We here in New Zealand have however grown soft on inequality. That this is true can not only be shown by the complete lack of protest against the blatant apartheid of the Waitangi Tribunal, of the many, many race-based policies still on the books in New Zealand.
This is an indictment against ourselves and our country, and a measure of our complacency and foolishness. So many people in so many places around the globe have been deceived into thinking that “the rule of democracy” is synonymous with “the rule of law”; that democracy is a safeguard of freedom. It is nothing of the sort.
Democracy is simply a counting of heads regardless of content. True liberty exists only when the inalienable rights of all individuals, regardless of race or colour, are put beyond the vote. Belief in the ‘democracy fallacy’ is so prevalent however that when a democracy is overthrown, even a racist democracy such as Fiji’s undeniably was, many immediately say that the perpetrators are dangerous criminals!
The reality is that democracy can be as unjust as an absolute monarchy, and it is just as immoral for a parliament to grant legal favouritism upon the grounds of race as it is for a king to do so, no matter how many people might vote for it!
The rule of law means the rule of principles of justice especially of the principle of equality before the law – equality for all, regardless of race! The democratic “mandate of the majority” is a valid way of choosing who should be in government, but not a valid way of justifying how they govern, or what laws they pass, nor an automatic justification of any law proposed by a democratic Parliament! Democracy is not synonymous with freedom.
Totalitarian democrats dread the spread of Bainimarama’s ideals
What the Clark regime are scared of is this: the simple realisation that a racist democracy not unlike the one they themselves are running has been overthrown, and overthrown in the name of overturning that entrenched and legalised racism. They can do nothing else but condemn Bainimarama!
Strong man and Savior of Fiji, the enlightened. Then Commander and Chief of the Fijian Armed forces, Frank Bainimarama.
The right of revolution
Let me state the fact that the principle of equality is no light or transient cause. What motivates me to support Bainimarama is exactly the same principle as motivated the American Declaration of Independence.
We must all be aware of the maxim of Edmund Burke: “All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” If you are in a position of power to stop a great injustice, but do not exercise that power, does your inaction not amount to complicity? Any man of virtue in Bainimarama’s position would be obliged to make the same choice: That is either do nothing and allow the evil of apartheid injustice to go unchecked, or to act and put an end to it!
According to Lockeian principles, it is not unjust to overthrow a tyrant. Any good man has the right to stop the enemies of mankind by the law of nature, just as they have the right to kill any savage beast. We have the natural right to defend our lives and property. It is not a crime but a righteous necessity to overthrow a corrupt government.
The limits of political power and the supremacy of justice
While many people understand that the principle of equality before the law means you cannot have one law for blacks or browns and another for whites, few people appreciate the fullness of its limiting power over government whatsoever its form. This same principle guarantees absolute equal freedom for all: It means a president, a king, or an indigenous native has no more rights than the lowliest citizen or the most recent immigrant.
Equality before the law means you cannot have a state religion. It means you cannot have an official culture. It means you cannot have one law for the rich and another for the poor. It means you cannot grant any favouritism whatsoever!
The tyranny of the mob under demagogues
How many people really want true equality? Not many! Most would rather have some say over their neighbour’s rights and liberties than enjoy their own – they would rather have an absolute, unlimited democracy – one in which nothing has been put beyond the vote – if it allows them to somehow bully their neighbour, or to gain preference for their own. There are plenty of demagogues willing to crush minorities and to ride the waves of bigotry into power, and plenty of people around the world ready to applaud the bigots.
The proper constitutional context of the conventions of democracy
The power of voting is more critical when the government has tyrannical powers.
When government is kept in check by a just libertarian constitution – when the government has been limited to protecting the rights of the individual, and the elected government is barred from totalitarianism or unlimited majority rule – then the power to vote away the rights and liberties of minorities is of much less consequence (and remember that the smallest minority is the individual, whose rights a just government is sworn to uphold).
In such a system, what the US Founding Fathers described as a constitutional republic, no matter what religion or culture is in the majority or who is voted into office, the government cannot pass discriminatory laws nor usurp greater powers at the expense of the rights and liberties of the population.
The fact that nations like Fiji and New Zealand don’t have such constitutional restraints means that the right to vote is itself looked upon as the primary safeguard against corruption, and the notion of taking away an elected government by force sends dread trough the Mobocracy — yet that liberation will be met with jubilation by the liberated minorities who have borne the brunt of democratic injustice.
The limits of representative government and the power of consent
It must be remembered that the right to vote is not a license to create a tyranny of the mob. The right to vote in a representative government is subordinate to the principles of justice. The mandate of the majority can never legitimately override the principle of equality before the Law. The principle of the consent of the governed is itself subordinate to the principle of equality before the law.
The principle of equality is the only condition of justice whereby everyone can be justly expected to grant consent, so this principle becomes an absolute justification for any form of government that is constitutionally founded upon it. Those who refuse to consent to equality and instead desire an unjust form of rule, whether they represent either a majority or minority, can rightfully be ignored and even suppressed (meaning: they halted from unjust revolution):
It is just to impose equality upon an unwilling/barbarous population by force to keep their prejudice in check.
It is just to crush socialist uprisings.
It is just to overthrow racist democracies.
It is just to hunt down religious terror groups who seek religious tyranny.
It is just to go to war to liberate a slave pen, and to occupy foreign lands wherein the threat of ideological evil dwells.
The justice of all these things hinges on the principle of equality. Equality before the law is the standard by which to judge the validity of all law and government.
This ultimate truth is founded upon our God-given equal rights, rights that exist as inalienable absolutes irrespective of laws and governments. Fiji is technically in a state of civil war, and has been since it instituted racist government long ago, at which point it went to war against those citizens whose rights it overthrew. In overturning a racist government and in suppressing racist mob uprisings, I submit that Bainimarama is acting under this principle of justice. He must take care how he goes about this difficult task.
The current confrontation with the Great Council of Chiefs was inevitable, since it was this corrupt political body that was behind the Rabuka and Speight coups, and behind the apartheid system of favouritism for indigenous Fijians. He must divest these tribal chiefs of their corrupt powers that perverted the democracy of Fiji into an apartheid system. The best thing the chiefs can do is support a new constitution in which all Fijians, regardless of race, are recognised as being equal before the law.
The responsibility for government rests with the people
“Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” This is the great fear of any nation, and no doubt is a reason many fear the power of Bainimarama. I wonder why these same fearful souls are not leading a revolution against Helen Clark and Her Own Absolute Democracy!
How much evil will these frightened souls suffer before they rise up against her? Even in Western civilisations, millions are dying each year as a direct result of socialism, yet no one acts against it because democracy has turned them into spineless slaves. Ultimately absolute tyrants everywhere prosper because the population is too scared to overthrow them. They prefer the safety of slavery to the risk of dying for freedom. Mugabe will continue to tyrannise Zimbabweans until the people say enough is enough. Putin will continue to suppress Russian protest until the people say enough is enough. Their tyranny will continue until those sufficiently brave and staunch enough for freedom run into the seat of power and oust these tyrants!
The limits of tyrants are set by the resistance of their citizens. All would-be tyrants must fear the wrath of freedom-loving people! Dictatorships can only stand where the people choose submission over revolution.
The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance.
Who ought to engage in such revolution? Every enlightened individual who refuses to submit to tyranny. New Zealanders need to sort out their own apartheid systems of state before they tell Commodore Bainimarama to surrender to the racists of Fiji!
Tim Wikiriwhi is a Hamilton engineer, and a self-described Independent Libertarian.
Benefactor of Fiji… Commodore Frank Bainimarama seen here visiting New Deli.
Cassidy Boon is a Naive Feminist socialist/ self appointed ‘activist for social justice’ and *I personally disagree with everything she represents, yet I am horrified to see that a horde of ‘precious’ minded fellow Kiwis have manage to lobby Facebook into deleting this little girls facebook page simply because they could not handle her expressing her opinions.
In a manor I found very amusing/ quirky, she dared to criticize the Haka and after researching New Zealand on the net she expressed her *textbook* socialist feminist disdain for what she saw as ‘injustices against woman and the indigenous Maori’ whom… from her reading of propaganda on the net… she gleans are an under-trodden race.
The Irony is though she obviously wanted to help the poor oppressed Maori, she made the *unforgivable sin* of critisising a Maori Custom…. something considered Taboo in these parts.
I wrote a blog post in response to her original video >here< and you will find her original Youtube post there too (unless that gets axed too!)
Some people will think I am strange rallying in support of a person who if she studied my stuff on the net would probably think I'm a social menace... and would probably laugh if it was *me* who had been removed.
They probably think I should be joining the celebration that she's gone... after all is it not great when an ideological enemy takes a hit?
Is not vengeance sweet?
For me it's frightening just how bad the tyrrany of Political Correctness is successfully destroying free speech and silencing dissent.
This will have been devastating to her as she ... like me... puts her heart and soul into social concerns, and it is frightening to think that such small minds in large numbers can get *anyone* shut out of what has become an essential medium for people to express themselves, and fight for causes they believe are important to humanity.
As a person of strong independent views and the moral conviction at demands that I speak out against evil where ever I see it, I fear this Rabid Mob might get *me banned next*.
It is a favorite tool of nasty Socialists to attempt to get the voices of their opponents silenced via labeling anything they dont like as ‘Trolling’ or ‘hate speech’ and maliciously working to get them Banned.
This is definitive Fascism…. and the resort of devils who cant rebut their adversaries with reason and truth.
We live in Petty… yet dangerous times…. We even have intellectuals who suggest Non-conformity is a mental illness!
I have set up a facebook page hoping to get her restored… I have no idea how to effect this… yet this blog post and facebook page is my attempt to do just that…. for the sake of free speech … against the tyranny of Politically correct censorship… of which The removal of Cassidy Boon from facebook is a sorrowful example of nasty Mob mentality.
I call everyone who believe in free speech to please join my FB page, and help get her restored.
I need help to achieve this.
I know that by defending Cassidy… I am defending *all our rights* to think and to speak.
These sorts of ‘Lynch mobs’ are a threat to Individualism and all of us who naturally… refuse to be lemmings, and righteously swim against the tide.
And Cassidy…. if you ever read this… I want to say how ashamed I am to be a New Zealander for what they have done to you…. and I would apologize for what my countrymen have done… yet I dont speak for anyone but myself.
Please know that I had nothing to do with it… and please *Dont* remove your Videos from Youtube.
You have every right to express your views.
I can see you are an intelligent Girl, funny, and I would love to teach you about Libertarian social justice ideology.
You have great potential.
Please sign my petition for the sake of Free speech >here.
Update: 21/11/15 VICTORY! She has been restored…. I’m convinced it was all because of my petition which mannaged to get 1 vote. :-)…. terrified the hell outa Mark Zuckerburg!
Thank you facebook for such a good outcome.
When I read the tiny NZ Herald story about Ludovic Boumbas there was no picture… but an account of mighty heroism.
I was not expecting him to be Negroid… yet there he is ^^^^ up there…. or was… for Ludovic died in Paris …deliberately flinging himself between the murderous onslaught of a Satanic terrorist and his companions.
The article reports… “Mr Boumbas’s friends hailed his bravery. One said: ‘Ludo threw himself forward to protect a girl and took the bullet. She was also shot, but she survived. He loved travelling the world and above all he loved people. He was just one of life’s good, good people. He didn’t stand a chance.’
Miss Clement’s manager at Café des Anges, Virgile Grunberg, said after visiting her in hospital: ‘She was on morphine and was in shock. She would barely speak. She felt guilty because Ludovic died for her. She just kept repeating his name again and again.’… Boumbas… Boumbas…
I had to shield my tear as I was sitting at smoko with Colleagues all enjoying their break.
Ludovic proves once again that it is in Humanities darkest hours… that’s when the best of us shine their brightest.
If you don’t agree that property rights are restrictions on freedom—if you think instead, for example, that property rights are a prerequisite of freedom—then either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’ve been reading too much Rand, or, at any rate, you’re using the word ‘freedom’ in a particular sense of the word that’s packed with presuppositions—and freedom might as well be just another word for nothing left to lose because with our differing conceptions of freedom now in play we’re all ready, set, go to miscommunicate spectacularly.
Other people’s property rights are restrictions on your freedom, and your property rights are restrictions on other people’s freedom. Is this not obvious from the textbook definition of property?
Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. … The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.
As wrong as it sounds on the face of it, libertarians are actually all in favour of giving up a little freedom in order to gain … what? Property rights, that’s what. Your freedom ends (where my property rights begin). Property rights are restrictions on freedom.
Ownership is the central concept in political philosophy. Every political ism (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.) is defined by its theory of property rights. Every political ism says what belongs to whom, and who belongs to what. So it’s important to think about this topic until you actually get it.
Thomas Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy. In a Hobbesian state of nature, everyone is perfectly free. And life is total shit. Why? Because
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
To extricate ourselves from such a dire circumstance as perfect freedom, we need to (hopefully) agree on a few rules (and abide by them and enforce them). The first and most obvious one (subject to caveats later, but we’ll get to that) is the non-initiation of (physical) force. The NIOF principle. My freedom ends where your nose begins. And vice versa.
Voila! with this one simple rule, we have property rights, in the form of self-ownership. Your ownership of your body, your property rights in your body, are restrictions on other people’s freedom to do what they please with your body. With this one simple rule, the NIOF priniple, in place, you now own your body because you remain free to do as you like with your body, but no one else is now free to do as they like with your body.
The general point here is that all property rights correspond to a set of restrictions on the freedoms of non-owners. Property rights in tangible goods mean that owners of said goods are free to determine the use of such goods, and no one else is. Get your hands off my stuff! Intellectual property rights mean that owners of ideas can copy them, but no one else can. You wouldn’t download a bear!
Thus the central question of political philosophy is, what property rights should people have? Or, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? And these amount to exactly the same question.
This post is the first in a new series about property rights. And in it I want to take a look at the issue of land ownership. This is topical because the issue of land ownership is closely tied to the issue of national borders. Should we allow unrestricted “open borders” or should we control border traffic to a greater or lesser extent?
Did you notice my equivocation on the central question of political philosophy? I said above that
Every political ism (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.) is defined by its theory of property rights. It says what belongs to whom, and who belongs to what.
but I also said above that
the central question of political philosophy is, what property rights should people have?
What property rights do people have? Is one question. What property rights should people have? Is another question. And why should people have those particular property rights and not others is another question altogether. It is mandatory pedantry to point out that these are three separate questions. If we confound these three distinctly different questions then we’re all ready, set, go to miscommunicate spectacularly.
Notice how loose-talking Lew mixes it up.
In order to … reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. … Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything.
Rockwell is quite wrong in what he actually says. Certainly we can say that public property is owned by the government. Firstly, does government have property rights in government-owned land? Yes, government-owned land is owned by the government! But, secondly, should government have property rights in what is currently government-owned land? Rockwell says no, government may not legitimately own anything. I won’t argue with that. Thirdly, why may government not legitimately own anything?
To be clear, the central question of political philosophy as such is the second of these questions. What property rights should people have? Or, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? As noted already, these amount to exactly the same question. But I think it’s more instructive to focus on the question’s second formulation. So now let’s get down to business and ask it with respect to land ownership.
With respect to land use, what restrictions on people’s freedoms should there be? Exactly what forms of land ownership are available in the fabled land of Anarcho-Libertopia? And what is their justification?
I’m only going to point in the general direction of beginning to answer these questions. Suffice it to say, I have a nuanced view. The idea that there should be restrictions on land ownership, or even that people shouldn’t be allowed to own land at all, isn’t new. For example, geolibertarianism is a Georgist school of thought within libertarianism. The New Mutualists are their anarchist counterparts. So I’m in very good company.
So now let’s look at what Lew Rockwell says to discredit himself. How low does he go?
Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.
When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position.
What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.
The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. … I cannot simply go wherever I like.
Rockwell totally plumbs it.
He gets it totally wrong. True libertarians absolutely do believe in freedom of movement as an abstract principle. We’re freedom-fighters and we believe in freedom! Derp.
Land ownership is a restriction on people’s freedom of movement. Any such restrictions on people simply going wherever they like must be justified.
The problem with unrestricted land ownership is that by buying up all the land surrounding someone’s else’s slice of heaven you can effectively lay seige to that person, cut off their vital supply lines, and kill them. Only a moral monster would give the green light to, let alone actively encourage and enforce, a system that allowed such perverse and depraved outcomes. Sadly, we in the West (that is to say, our governments) have shown ourselves to be exactly this depraved, by turning away refugees at our national borders, condemning them to take their chances back in their homelands from which they were already fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children.
From here, observes Carson from his vantage point on the moral high ground
Rockwell continues to elaborate on an argument whose basic assumptions are — I say without equivocation — mind-numbingly stupid.
As both Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock argued, the land of the entire world will never be universally privately appropriated by legitimate means. The only way in which every single parcel of land can come under private ownership is through what Oppenheimer called “political appropriation” and Nock called “law-made property.” And it’s no coincidence, as both of them argued, that universal appropriation of the land is a prerequisite for economic exploitation. Only when people are cut off from the possibility of homesteading and subsisting on previously vacant land, and employers are thereby protected against competition from the possibility of self-employment, is it possible to force people to accept employment on whatever disadvantageous terms the property owners see fit to offer.
That says something right there about the kind of people whose wet dream is an entire world without an unowned place to stand on, without some property owner’s permission.
Today the Rothbard-Hoppe-Rockwell kind of people that Carson rightly vilifies for their despotism in the guise of libertarian purity call themselves ancaps. And they’re fair game. You can read the rest of Carson’s demolition of Rockwell’s “wretched turd of an article” here.
So what forms of land ownership (restrictions on other people’s movements) should we allow?
In the first chapter of the Book of Job, God convenes a meeting with his angels, and Satan shows up.
The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” (NIV)
Satan freely roams the earth, going back and forth on it. How should we restrict Satan’s movements? Because no one wants Satan trampling all over their cabbages. But we don’t want to restrict anyone’s freedom of movement unnecessarily. So where do we draw the right lines when it comes to restricting land use? And how do we justify drawing the particular lines that we determine we should?
Well, as I said, I’m only going to point in the general direction of beginning to answer these questions. But let’s go right back to Hobbes and his state of nature, and ask why we would restrict our own and anyone’s freedoms at all?
It’s so that we can have a place for industry, and the fruit thereof. It’s so that we can enjoy culture of the earth, navigation, the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, commodious building, instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, knowledge of the face of the earth, account of time, arts, letters, and society. Without continual fear and danger of violent death.
In short, we justify having property rights (restrictions on our freedoms) on consequentialist grounds. We allow such property rights as we do for the greater good of the greater number in society.
That’s my conclusion and I don’t like it much either. I welcome your comments.
“We believe in the right of everyone to seek his fortune and live, to the respect for the other and tolerance. We know that our free life is stronger than any terrorist. Let’s give the terrorists the answer by living our values confidently. And as we affirm these values throughout Europe. Now more than ever.”
My Prayers are with her and Germany.
May The Lord shine upon this nation and keep them from the evils which terrify so many westerners to the point that they want to NUKE Arabia…. Annihilate a Billion people…. leave children to die at their gates.
Times of Crisis demand greatness from those whom would lead… and she is great!
To Paraphrase another great man… Tom Payne… “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer Humanitarian and the sunshine Socialist will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as The Fraternity of Mankind should not be highly rated.
Isis, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to Murder) but by our own fears in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER cause us to abandon our values… if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.”
Two words…. each represents a side of this controversy…. Terror vs Love.
I dont know how long she will be able to maintain these Humanitarian ‘Open door’ policies as Opposition is waiting for *any terrorism*
*Any unrest* to Thwart her ambitions and slam the door on the desperate victims of war.
Sadly the xenophobic hordes despise her and want her humanitarianism to ‘blow up in her face’.
They want to vindicate their Cold hearted cowardice and inhumanity.
While Populist/ nationalist politicians about the globe (like Donald Trump) seek to prosper from the paranoia Terrorism fathers… talk of mass deportations, New Walls, and abandoning Religious liberty (Banning Islam) Merkel boldly talks of humanity and principles… and calls for Courage!
I salute her.
May God smile upon Germany, and bless them, and cause the refugees to be a boon for them.
May God convert millions whom have witnessed the horrors of Radical Islam to seek Libertarian enlightenment and salvation via Christ.
Blessed be the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God!
In them lies the hope of mankind…. till the return of Christ.
The Anti-Migrant cowards have nothing.
” Foxes have holes, and Birds have their nests,But the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head…” Luke 9vs58
“About 100 people from the Muslim community have gathered in downtown Auckland to protest against terrorist group Isis.
Both young and old are currently at the Aotea Square calling on world leaders to unite against the group, which in the last day has claimed responsibility of the deadly attacks in Paris, which killed up to 120 people and injuring many others.
Several people – including children – are holding signs.
A little girl holds one which reads: “We stand in solidarity with French – we share your pain.”
Another calls on the Afghanistan Government to take more action “before it’s too late.”
While another says: “We condemn the killings of innocent people in Afghanistan.”
One woman told the group Isis had again struck its deadly hand on the people of France.
But many other people around the world – including in Afghanistan – had lost their lives to terrorist actions.”
Read more >>>Here<<<
A group of Hazara people from Afghanistan, protest in Aotea Square Auckland after a young family including a mother and daughter were beheaded during an attack in Afghanistan. Photo / Greg Bowker
These ‘Moderate’ protests coincide with others all around the globe…. Read about them >>>> Not In My Name! Muslims Condemn Isis Terror.<<<
These civilised Muslims put paid to the accusations of the Far right that 'All Muslims are terrorists'...
The Far Right work to strengthen Isis and Hate.
They forget that ISIS kills more Muslims than any one else.
I salute these brave Muslims who step forward and speak out against the atrocities.... for peace.
“Drinking alcohol in moderation does not make you an addict…. doesn’t make you a bad christian, and being a Christian does not mean you have to be a boring weird freaky person that doesn’t have fun anymore.. how about this…. I’m DONE with religion and STUPID RULES that some one other than Jesus’thought up for my own good!’
How about this… come and see Jesus…. He’ll tell me how to live my life…. that’s enough…SCREW the rest!!!!
In light of the Terror attacks in Paris, Friends of mine ask “where are the condemnations of the so-called moderates?”.
To which I reply… a better question is *where is the western media coverage* of the Moderates voice?
This exposes the one eyed nature of Western media…. The voices against terror are out there…. yet Like Libertarians… they are ignored.
A girl holds a sign during a rally by members of the Muslim community of Madrid outside Madrid’s Atocha train station, January 11, 2015, in solidarity with the victims of a shooting by gunmen at the Paris offices of the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, and against Islamophobia. REUTERS/Juan Medina (SPAIN – Tags: CIVIL UNREST CRIME LAW POLITICS) – RTR4KWYN
Father Tackles Suicide Bomber In Beirut, Killing Himself To Save Hundreds Of Lives.
” Adel Termos will be a name you haven’t heard before but may never forget.
Prior to Thursday evening’s horrific attack, he was out with his young daughter in Beirut’s predominantly Shia Muslim neighbourhood of Burj al-Barajneh when two ISIS terrorists turned the area into a swirling inferno of death, destruction and misery.
The first suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest outside the target Shia mosque but thinking on his feet, Termos decided to rush and tackle the other suicide bomber. His decision saved the lives of hundreds of those inside the Shia mosque as well as his daughter but unfortunately cost him his own.”
Read more >>>Here<<<
Migrant Muslim tells the Extremists they are scum and are not welcome >>>here<<<
With the recent events in Paris, this message from a MUSLIM man needs SHARING!
Blair: Orthodoxy. Adam: Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Reed: TANJ There is now. Tim: Christianity, libertarianism, and keeping it real. Slaggin' socialists and bangin' atheist heads! Richard: An intoxicating mix of Jesus, freedom fighting and death metal. Slaggin' socialists and headbangin'!
Feel free to copy any of our posts. All we ask is that you properly attribute the source by mentioning the name of this blog and the author of the post. Please add a link in the comments to the post you copy so we know.
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.