Category Archives: Ayn Rand

Tripping Over Pebbles Laid Down For Catching Out The Wicked.. #1 Onanism and the Infidel.

379

The Meme Below was posted by an Atheist named ‘Christopher’ to a Facebook group I belong to, and because it really is definitive of the Level upon which Atheism/ infidelity in general functions I feel my response is worthy of being Blogged… esp because these topics keep popping up time and time again… so like a Cake I have prepared earlier for the Cooking show… I like to have my enlargements ready for when they are needed… and blog posts work best for this.
2017 resolution: I am going to put more effort into Blogging this stuff… even if they are just a single paragraph.

15822838_10207725315276380_4151138616722794538_n

Tim Wikiriwhi to Christopher….

Christopher is King of tripping over pebbles… Its his thing… He enjoys it.
He cannot understand that these pebbles exist for the sake of giving the ‘Christophers’ of the world something to to reveal their inner nature…. a hell bent need to come up with ‘Rationalisations’ to stand in accusation of the Christian God…. so that they can tell themselves their rebellion is some sort of ‘wise and principled stand’…. (even though Atheism renders every act of humanity Nill… neither good or evil).
So God as Luke correctly states… God is God… and He sets the standards for what is right and wrong… *not the Christophers of this world* (who in fact have Zero as their standard)…. and he (God Almighty) in this special case is seen exercising his Sovereignty… and its this Sovereignty… this Right to Judge… that Christopher hates the most about the Judeo-Christian God.
Thus Stated: God Judges *All Sin*.
Onan Sinned.
God Judged him.
The End.

Now for 5 cents let me add that I myself practice ‘Onanism’ as a form of Birth control *all the time*… yet By Gods Grace I am still here… Which Proves that God Sovereignty *also* includes his Divine right to be merciful and show grace…. yet of course ‘The Christophers’ of this world are not interested in hearing about *The Gracious God*… as that does not feed their childish Hate and rebellion…

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Hurling stones…Moral superiority is no vindication for a poisonous heart. Hate always begets hate, never enlightenment. The Truth needs Love.

Stephen_Stoning_Lauri
^ The stoning of Stephen… Ironically Saul would become St Paul the Greatest Apostle and chosen vessel of God to preach Grace unto humanity… ending Moral legalism. After meeting Christ and receiving his commission he never again picked up the stones. He said “If it be possible… as much as lieth in you live peaceably with all men”.
Among other principles … including the love of God towards all men *as individuals*, and their equality he laid down the principles that would one day give birth to Libertarianism and the concepts of God given inalienable rights of individuals…. yet my post is only indirectly about this.

Todays blog post is on a subject that has been fermenting in my mind for many years, and it is written just as much to myself as to others.
It has to do with my personal development as a human being… a growth in personal wisdom and character., and most importantly it is aimed at making me a more effective soldier in the battle of Ideas.
My life over the last 20 years has been in Flux…. High Highs and low lows… and via the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I have battled forth …. Flailing my sword about driven by emotion as much as reason…. And emulating others as much as blazing my own trail… and this has had as many disadvantages as advantages.
Not only have I learned Good habits, but also very bad ones, and todays post is about understanding all this better, and attempting to up my game… and become a better person in the process.
It wont be easy… as not only does it involve breaking entrenched habits that have become natural to me but also provide me with a certain amount of pleasure… and on top of that it involves reinventing my own Self-image of who I am… loosing some vices that I have mistaken as virtues and as such given me self esteem when I should have felt shame… and yet if I succeed in this I will start to see the virtues of character traits I have held to be vices… and I expect to generate a new basis for self esteem… via improved character and more effectiveness as a crusader for Truth, justice, and the salvation of individuals.
Big claims huh! :-)… yet definitely worthy of contemplation.

Lets get into it …
In these times of Terror and barbarity, it is commonplace to find the so-called lovers of Liberty to be openly pouring out hatred upon Muslims because of their concepts of Sharia Law, Jihad, intolerance, and brutality and so that even their most benign activities receive the most vehement responses.

You can be sure that at any mention of Islam that within minutes Self Righteous people seeking to promote terror and hate will post un-moderated pictures and accounts of atrocities that are supposed to foster and vindicate their outrage and hatred towards Muslims.
This is particularly noticeable in the attitudes of the disciples of that most militant of atheists… Ayn Rand… who collectively go by the name of ‘Objectivists’… yet also is common place rationale among other Non-Muslims… Jews, Hindus… and tragically… among the majority of those who go by the name of Christian.
What bothers me is that this negativity and outrage…. While at face value appears both Natural and justified… it does little towards actually saving the world, but plays into the hands of the terrorists and haters.
It is great at stirring up support for closing boarders to the Displaced, and Sending in the stealth Bombers…. Yet we have all herd the motto that while military action can be essential and justified… that wars are ultimately won in *battlefield of the minds of humanity.*
That forced peace due to military might is always short lived… with the evil still fermenting *as hatred*… just under the surface… just waiting for fresh opportunity to boil over again.
What I am about to say is not only worth contemplating in regards to ultimately winning the ideological war against Islamic extremism, but I believe is valuable in all aspects of the winning support for truth and enlightenment.
Here is an example of the problem as I see it…

Recently I came across some Objectivist Atheists engaged in their favorite past time of slinging shit at Islam… under the pretense that this was Righteous Indignation against an insidious Evil… yet for the record this conversation could just as well have been found coming from Christian supporters of Donald Trump.
A school was having a “Try the Hijab Day”…. followed by the comment ‘Why not have a “Try a Nazi Uniform day” also?’.

Sure enough the following comment and picture was solicited…
.
“Well done XXXX XXXXXX. What a great man you are. Islamic sadism is a terrible thing. Murderous attacks on innocent female victims including even infants are not just the action of a lone wolf or even of the multiple “lone wolves” involved. .There is an appalling mindset inculcated and encouraged from birth, so embedded and reinforced that not even one individual does anything to deter the horrific violence against the powerless. In civilised communities public entertainment comes in the form of sporting contests, musical entertainment and events uplifting for families. In savage anti-humanity societies public entertainment is a large hate-filled crowd of males exulting in the worst imaginable brutality.”

bashed by muslims

^^^That escalated quickly! … yet is typical.
The post went from an inter-cultural school lesson designed to ‘de-alienate children into an attempt to subvert them into accepting… maybe even committing atrocities!

Of course the terrible deeds committed in the name of Islam should generate indignation and elicit vocal responses, yet identifying problems and evils is at best only the beginning of the solution… and I believe that too many people allow *the problem* to cloud their better judgment and actually turn them into just another part of the problem rather than taking the higher road that leads the world out of darkness.
Terrorism and brutality ferment reciprocal hatred…. an unqualified blind type of hatred that is quick to pass a sentence of collective guilt upon an entire demographic because of the activities of a few.
Those drawn into this mindset mistake bigotry for righteous outrage and this is exactly what the terrorists, and hate groups feed upon.
This sort of reciprocity highlights the dilemma of being a Libertarian who hopes to create a better world.

As a Christian Libertarian I myself believe Islam to be a dangerous false religion,and am not at all surprised by the horrors that are being committed in it’s name, yet in the same token I also know that Atheism is also a dangerous false religion and that it too is responsible for infinite evils.
I also know that many so-called Christians are vile Statists… that they too support political oppression, and I respect the right of people to express their views, and criticize others.
Yet as a Libertarian I know not to be suckered into bogus collectivist mentality that underpins Bigotry.
While exercising my right to express my views, and fulfilling my duty to God to defend the faith,
I dont say *All Muslims* *All Atheists* are ‘Blar’ ‘Blar’… I try to avoid promoting bigotry.
With regards to Islamiphobia, it is sometimes too easy to post horrible pictures of victims of various hate groups… without clarifications… this is usually done *to promote bigotry… to illicit support for nasty prejudices*… and that is why It is very hard to be a Good Libertarian…. Speaking out against bigotry ,yet without underplaying the veracity of legitimate concerns .
And here I get to the crux of my argument for this post… the point in which I seek to improve my own game…
I believe this ‘essential balance’ between boldly facing heinous truths, yet not falling into bigotry can only be done by the sincere of heart who are prepared to look at both sides of any contentions… and to be found to be discussing things as objectively as possible… and that is never achieved by over-generalizations… and furthermore by looking not only at the truthfulness of contentious issues, but just as essentially *at the heart motive* of both ourselves… and of the Diatribes we encounter.
It is only if we maintain a clean heart… free of Rancor… motivated by Love…with our eyes on the prize … that we can be effective evangelists of enlightenment.
I am not saying I have mastered these arts.
In fact I am sure I haven’t… yet I am aware of the ‘Bad habit’ and base ‘pleasure’ that comes from opening up cans of malice upon the objects of our scorn.
I try to reserve that sort of ‘disregard’ for those whom I believe truly embody willful Evil… those whom have no desire to see their own wickedness… but revel in it… yet still you cant expect pouring out indignation to win anyone for truth!
It is in this sense an admission of frustration and defeat.
It is a sad truth that *some people*… many people are beyond reason… even those who claim to be champions of it!
The human factor is always at work… the bible says “the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”, and again “That this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world but that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.”
The problem with dishing out Evil for evil is that while it is relatively easy to identify evil values and beliefs, and to take some sort of pleasure from the idea that we are morally superior, yet after this what do we do with our knowledge?
Do we allow it to ferment hatred and justify aggression, justify building walls from which we throw righteous stones? (its amazing who condemns the stoning of sinners in the old testament yet who support their governments doing the same thing and worse… to foreigners with foreign beliefs)
Or do we try and overcome ideological evils via the higher path… via enlightened values… reason and example?

handshake

Do we even care about those people lost in darkness enough to open up and maintain dialogues, or do we write them off as wicked reprobates and stamp their foreheads with ‘Child of Satan’?
I believe that if the world is going to become more free and civil requires not just military supremacy, but Victories of enlightenment and good will to triumph over Darkness and reciprocal malevolence… and this can only be done by ‘Lovers’ not ‘haters’.
Our societies must not only truly embody Libertarian justice and equality, but also the spirit of benevolence towards ‘the lost’, and a desire to ‘win’ them over in their hearts and minds…. And these are ‘Christian humanitarian values towards the lost’ and why Christianity is one of the few ideologies with the power to overcome savagery, Crime, evil superstitions, and bigotry.
I am not simply saying that Christianity practiced well is both truthful and righteous… which it is… but that everybody… non-Christians as well can learn valuable insights into how to stimulate the growth of civilization… how to bring light and peace into areas of Darkness and Barbarism.
I also say that these truths expose Rancid ideologies that pose as Reason and enlightenment yet are in fact hotbeds of bigotry and hate… and that despite their self-acclamation as being the champions of humanity and social progress… are actually a big part of the problem!
They are almost as backward and deranged as the evils they profess to be the vanguard against.

Thus we must take care how we wield our Ideological swords.
Too often the ‘Superiority complex’ is used as justification for Hatred, bigotry, and pouring out Guile…. which only exacerbates the troubles and further alienates those who we should be trying to lead up the higher path.
And This is why the *heart motive* behind what we write and say determines the ‘Spirit’ of actions and the success or failure in respect to the war of ideas.
For sure Tirades that spew forth hot coals upon their chosen targets are ‘successful’ for attracting the applause and fame within other haters yet absolutely fail at bringing more enlightenment into the world.
I think there are times and places to have ‘in house’ pep talks to the troops that may be spoken in strong terms to emphasize the gravity of what is at stake… and the urgency with which they must rally, yet that cant be a summary of your entire modus opperandi!
You need to make it clear the while the evils are vile, and that arms may be needed, not to mistake this as an excuse to become a hater… and that Goodwill towards humanity must always be at the forefront.
If we realize that most people in dark lands believe backward things only do so because they have not been exposed to the truth in a way that they can see as being not only true… but delivered by souls of good will who *want their betterment*… this is far more likely to increase the sum in favour of enlightenment and lead to real victories in the battle of Ideas.
Missionaries are just as essential as Arms in the struggle as ultimately it is only an enlightenment that can overcome Evil ideologies.
And this is basic stuff… because we know that we ourselves are far more likely to respond positively to truths that are presented out of care than out of hate.

darkness vs love
I found this…From someone who actually won over hearts and minds rather than just pouring out scorn… upon those who deserved it.

changing the world
Actions speak louder than words

Now look at this pic below posted to an Objectivist FB page, and think about what such cartoons hope to achieve.
Read the comments

toilet koran... not smart.

Like • Reply •
B R
Bf That kind of shit will plug up your pipes in the worst way.
Like • Reply •
J M
J M Throw the Bible in there as well to make it even better.
Like • Reply •

Now read my comment…
Tim Wikiriwhi
Tim Wikiriwhi You know XXXXX that I can see the amusement factor in this picture… *yet contemplate this for a moment*… do you think it actually serves to further the cause of Freedom?
Do you think that it will be propitious in convincing Muslims to listen to you… to forsake Islam and embrace your values and ideals?
Dont you understand that this is actually childish and counter productive to your professed desire to enlighten the world?
Dont you see that this merely panders to the Haters… the bigots, those people who dont give a shit about *Saving the muslims*… but seek to insult them and vent hatred upon them?
Like • Reply •

I receive a typical response …. And my answer follows
B R said…. “ They will never forsake their values or their ideals. That is not islam. Islam is above any other ideals. To them anyone other than islam is beneath them. You can’t reason with someone who always thinks he is above you. You can bow to their needs. They will never bow to yours. How many women and children have to be raped and murdered for you to see this.”
Like • Reply • 2 hrs
My Reply…. “B R.. You have defeated yourself… maybe willfully so…. what you have said is something *You want to believe* rather than something that is empirically true, and you do it to excuse your own lack of reason when dealing with this problem.
You say they are beyond reason when the truth is ‘You cant be bothered trying… and you actually *hate* them… ie you dont have any compassion…. yet you have plenty of spleen that you want to vent.
Your character is such that you cant even be polite to them.
You look down your nose at them.
And you are cowardly.
The idea of befriending a Muslim terrifies you.
Let me tell you that Plenty of Muslims have been converted to Christianity by Christians who *Care enough* to take the trouble, and run the risks.
Christians *see the prize* and believe it’s worth every effort.
Wining lost souls to the truth… to truth that raises savages out of Dark superstitions and brings civilization… and ends Barbarisms…. fosters good will and peaceful co-existence.
Christianity sees Muslims and atheists *as valuable … precious individuals*… not as hopelessly Damned sub-humans.
Now if Objectivism really did value the human individual… really was ‘a movement for civilization’ it would not generate such defeatism , indifference…. Worse absolute hatred towards billions of human beings.
Like • Reply • Just now

self righteous

^^^ So my post looks to be finishing on a condemnation of the philosophy of Objectivism as *Anti-Individualism*
*Anti-Humanity* …. A Wolf in sheeps clothing.
Every virtue it pretends to extol are found to be Hot air…. mere platitudes.
It does not tend towards enlightenment and the value of human individuals and that is why it’s ranks are peopled with egotistical narcissists of malicious minds… and this leads them to promoting very *inhuman solutions* in dealing with the likes of the Victims of Islamic extremism and western foreign policy… solutions completely at variance with the founding principles of Libertarianism… esp with regards to the current Refugee crisis.

No doubt my comments here will not find many Objectivists open enough to see that I am right.
They might even say that I’m practicing ‘hate speech’ against them… that I’m not being PC enough towards them … that by my hardness I am not demonstrating ‘love’ towards them, and so failing on every level to reach *Their hearts and minds*…. Yet even if this were true… would not such an accusation actually vindicate my whole post?
You see that even if I fail to live up to this post myself, it does not diminish its validity… it just exposes my own hypocrisy, and poor character.
Ironically I learned this polemic ‘Militancy’ from my Objectivist mentors!
This is a fact that i now seek to remedy.
It is more characteristic of the Pharisee Saul *Before* he met the risen Christ.
St Paul typifies conversion from the spirit of Moralistic persecution.
His zeal for the truth, is tempered by compassion and humanity,… the true spirit of Evangelism… and he was willing to lay his life down for it.
Nobody has been a more ardent defender of truth against superstition, yet still he used the power of persuasion to win converts… from a loving heart not self righteous malice.

He said “… yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”

Maybe Paul appreciated the grace God had shown him when he was in the throws of self righteous persecution.
Maybe his compassion comes from being once blind… yet by God’s grace… now he sees… and he knows that without brave preachers of grace and Good will… large swaths of humanity will remain under Satan’s Demonic sway… and be damned.

Realising my own problem… I am hereby seeking to learn better skills of communication… and this is what I meant in my introduction about this post being aimed as much at myself as at others.
Let me again talk about balance. I am not an apologist for ‘Politically Correctness’.
I believe The truth should be ruggedly defended and that content is far more important than grammar and worrying 24/7 about offending petty sensitivities… in fact as a Westy Bogan I simply cant function at that ‘Ivory tower level’… nor do I seek to be a part of that ‘elevated’ world.
I speak as a common man hoping to reach common people using common folk lingo and rationale.
And when talking to the likes of Objectivists you would hope that for all their claims of Rugged rationality that they of all people ought to be able to handle the truth hard spoken… yet again we find their claims to be hot air…. They love to dish it out but cant handle the slightest amount in return… so precious are their sensitivities… so vain are their egos …. They are not just beyond reproach… they are beyond reason.
I await *just one objectivist* to admit that I my post has validity, and that they will try and modify their behavior… to better embody the values their philosophy claims to precipitate.

I wrote a speech 10 years ago for the NZ Libz party, In it I talk about why I believe Objectivism fails to win over hearts and minds… and why Christianity on the other hand changed world history… and it has a lot to do with what I have been trying to talk to you about in this thread.
It is below.
I would like to point out that while I am no fan of PC rubbish, I think it is too easy… too convenient to pull out the ‘PC is evil’ card to justify rancid and obnoxious, and bigoted Tirades that are then expected to be vindicated as ‘Righteous indignation’… and ‘Rugged defense of liberty’ … etc when it is just Guile…

So To all you out there involved in the Battle of Ideas… no matter what color of faith or values you seek to propagate in this world, I hope my post helps you to appreciate that for victory in this ideological Battlefield, that *Heart motive* is just as important as being right.
It is sad to apprehend that sometimes the advocates of Evil understand this truth better than anyone, and that is why many of them *pretend* to care about those people in distress… only to lead them to destruction.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

My Speech >>> Libz 10th birthday speech. Monday, 31 July, 2006 11:23 PM By Tim Wikiriwhi Christian Libertarian.

More From Tim….

The lonely road. My divorce from John Ansell.

A High Calling.

Anti-Terrorism at its finest. The Road out of darkness into the light.

They are out there! Heroic and Virtuous Islamic Granny Schools Murdering Extremists.

Islamic Cleric Against Religious Extremism

What can we do? Socialism’s Tungsten shell, and the refugee crisis

God Bless Angela Merkel, and those Germans whom courageously support her in these times which try Men’s souls.

The Art of Assimilation. Culture shock, Lawlessness, and the challenges facing humanitarian good will

Good Eye Closed. The Powder Keg. The Dead keep washing up on the coasts of Europe.

Not In My Name! Muslims Condemn Isis Terror.

Insidious Evil . When ethics are used as a weapon against you.

IDF Code of Ethics. Fighting a just fight.

The Diabolical tactics of Hamas: What the IDF is up against.

How does the Israeli Defence Force minimize civilian casualties?

“One Day”. The Peace Song of Our Generation. Matisyahu.

You will be next! The power of the terror mongers. When fear dominates reason… evil prevails

The Boston Bombing. Christian Grace and Freedom and the Higher Path.

Watching Buses Bear down… Why bother to Proselytize? Penn Jillette

The Battlefield of the Mind. Eternal Vigilance!

Life’s a Stanley Milgram Experiment. (part1)

Jefferson’s God. The Rock upon which Liberty is founded. (God save us from Atheism!)

Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less

Protestant Christianity had a Baby… Libertarianism.

Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.

We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.

Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

The World is a Vampire.

What can we do? Socialism’s Tungsten shell, and the refugee crisis

Kiwis pledging to open their homes to Refugees>>>Here<<< Please Help the Red Cross!>>>> Check this out <<<< *********************************************************************************** 2BEDD97800000578-3220746-Grief_Reacting_to_the_tragedy_social_media_users_have_created_mo-a-19_1441288665287

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220746/God-little-angel-world-shows-grief-anger-death-tragic-Syrian-toddler-Aylan.html?ito=social-facebook

Today, I am ashamed to be a New Zealander…. thank’s for that John Key.
Not even the image of children washing up on beaches is enough to crack the Tungsten shell around some peoples hearts, and move them to ignore their selfish fears for the sake of innocent lives.

I admit that regarding the fact that New Zealand ought to open it’s doors to some portion of the flood of Syrian Refugees displaced by war, and atrocities our ‘great shepherd’ running this Socialist sheep station is in a tuff position.

Not only would opening our door run a high risk of allowing dangerous terrorists to creep in and reek monumental evils here… not only would a large influx of Muslims have dire consequences for the future of our democracy, a simplistic *socialist* view of economics is that we ourselves are already struggling to maintain 1st world standards of living… with mounting debts.
Are not our own growing numbers of poor and needy more than sufficient?
… after all ought not charity to begin at home?
Only a fool will not properly weigh these factors.

Still I say most of these problems above are generated by the Sheepish philosophies which underpin our crappy socialist islands.
Fear trumps reason.
Our rising debts, and levels of poverty may be squarely be laid at the feet of our Inept Political helmsmen of recent generations… whose medlings not only hobble our industries, heap up tax burdens, and reward sloth and political shystery, they also pander to a nasty and callous xenophobia which simply wants to ‘blame Great Satan America’ and change the TV channel when confronted with such horrific images.
Thus every one who has voted for this type of welfare state must bear some of the burden for John Keys decisions.

ddd
Photo Daily Mail

Not I! This blog post is written as the beginning of my personal effort to move our parliament into getting at least 10 000 of these Syrian Refugees over the great divide… and into our homes.

*Hang on Tim! Are you not being a hypocrite here?
How can you… as a Libertarian join the chorus for extending welfare to foreigners, when you have spent years condemning welfare for our own”?

It’s simple…. I’m not asking for more welfare-ism.
I’m asking to be allowed to extend a charitable hand… you see welfare is not charity… it’s anti-charity… it’s Heartless … Stone cold.
While shallow minds see welfare as helping the poor… they dont see that it first generates poverty.
Shallow minds believe welfare is humanitarian… yet it allows them to sear their consciences to the desperate outside our gates.

*Hang on Tim* I’ve read Ayn Rand… Libertarians actually think selfishness is a virtue!
What have you to say to that!

Only that Ayn Rand is not a Libertarian but a stain on our good name, and has done more to undermine our movement than any socialist argument ever could.
Regrettably she has attracted the worst types of haters and narcissists into this honorable movement, and caused our name to stink.

Libertarianism is in reality the last vanguard for true charity against the corrosive actions of Nanny State, which atrophies the Spirit of charity and self reliance.

It has become commonplace in Western socialist democracies like ours to pass laws against voluntary charities helping, housing, and feeding the homeless.

How many more Children have drowned while I sit in my comfortable chair typing this?

*Hang on Tim* lets say we allow you… and those whom think like you to transport some of these Syrians here, and let them live in your house…. what about the strain of our hospitals… what sort of conditions will they endure under your roof?
And of course if you put them to work cooking and cleaning… they must get minimum wages and conditions!

*I say* just look at those challenges you present, and how every one of them is a *socialist anti-charity construct*… obstacles getting in the way of compassionate people willing to make sacrifices for the sake of their fellow man.

These are daunting objections… like a row of neighbors preventing me from helping out… and I despise them all for it.

I say just let us help!
I say there ought to be enough volunteers in this country to surmount these sorts of troubles

To those of you who really care…. let’s rise up and at least try and save some!

My rave above is written in the hope that by exposing the evils and fears which are preventing New Zealand accepting more refugees… I can stimulate stronger convictions and bravery to overcome them… and ultimately… lets get rid of our Welfare state… for Justice, and the children’s sake.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

CN7zUEXW8AEYjSe

The Statue of Liberty stands in judgement!

Western Nations like America have forsaken freedom and lost their way!

New_colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

statue_of_liberty_facepalm2

Read more…. The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism.

Albert J Nock and the Atrophy of Charity and Self-Reliance

Hamilton City Council’s relentless agenda to starve out the homeless.

Real voluntary private Charity vs the evils of welfare and Political force Ruff draft.

Where Haters come from.

The Boston Bombing. Christian Grace and Freedom and the Higher Path.

Credits to Daily mail and Jews News.

Terrorists ginna Terrorise! >>>> ‘Just wait…’ Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe

Aylan and bro

Family of Syrian boy washed up on beach were trying to reach Canada

Morbid dreams of anarchy

47410_640

A Christian anarchist is … one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world.

Ammon Hennacy

Am I still a libertarian?

I don’t know the history of the word ‘libertarian’, who first coined it, or what it originally meant. But today there are at least three senses of the word. In a broad sense, a libertarian is someone who advocates more freedom and less government. In a narrower Randian sense, a libertarian is a minarchist. Someone who asserts that the legitimate role of the state is restricted to maintaining law and order, administering justice, and defending the realm. In the increasingly common modern-day sense a libertarian is a selfish asshole.

I’m still a libertarian in the broad sense, but no longer call myself such, because of the modern-day sense of the word. We owe its rise to Ayn Rand and her followers and to the liberal left who seize upon such opportunities as are provided by libertarians promoting “the virtue of selfishness” to tar us all with the same Objectivist brush. Its the very same statists whose successful attempts to perniciously redefine the word ‘liberal’ meant that we had to relinquish that particular label in favour of ‘libertarian’ but now that label too has become more trouble than its worth for true freedom fighters. Rand herself was adept at pernicious redefinition (it’s a key ingredient of her philosophical fiction) and we are now reaping the grim rewards of her linguicidal legacy.

Am I still a minarchist? No. (But I’m still a monarchist. Thy kingdom come.)

There’s a universal human tendency to latch on to appealing doctrines and dogmas, often at an early age, and then to fall prey to confirmation bias. We all do this, and typically we spend the rest of our lives with blinkers on, rehearsing and attending to information that supports our own settled opinions. And we give succour to inner demons who prowl around our minds like roaring lions looking for anomalous data points to devour. A typical example is that of a child who is raised by overbearing parents in a puritanical Christian household and who in adolescence is introduced to Ayn Rand’s novels and fictional philosophy. No doubt such is a liberating catharsis. But theirs is a sad fate. They throw out the baby Jesus with the religious bathwater of their parents but lose none of their parents’ zealotry which they take up in service of a seductive but ungodly cause, personal liberty that knows no master but the self. Most tragic of all, however, is the ongoing damage that the mistress of pain inflicts on their already injured minds. Rand both corrupts the soul and rots the brain. Objectivists and other assorted new atheists delude themselves that they are freethinkers yet the truth is that they have shaken of the shackles off their religious upbringings only to straight away submit to mental slavery in a different guise.

The mind of a true freethinker knows no bounds. At will it soars the celestial heavens of human cognition or traverses the valley of the shadow of brain death unscathed. What the mind of a true freethinker does not do is roam only throughout the earth, going back and forth over the same old ground, expecting to revise its worldview according the same old data every time. That’s insanity.

All of which is by means of getting around to saying that I’ve recently reviewed my political belief system and found minarchism wanting. The unexamined belief is not worth believing. Have you ever stopped to question your fundamental minarchist tenets? Minarchists assert that the state should have a legalised monopoly on violence and that it is good and proper that the citizenry should subject themselves to the authority of a gang of armed thugs whose ostensible duty it is to protect us from criminal aggression. But wait. Isn’t that the job of private security companies? How much protection is the state supposed to afford us anyway? Our tax dollars already pay for signs chiding us to lock our vehicles whilst blaming the victims of car thefts for the consequences of their own laxity. Shouldn’t the state extend this protection to subsidising deadlocks for our front and back doors? State agents could install them at the same time as the (soon-to-be if not already) mandatory insulation in our ceilings and wall cavities, while Nanny checks to makes sure we’ve shut all the windows before we go out.

Here’s what surely amounts to a strong case for anarchism as the only moral system of government. Ayn Rand hated it. She had this to say about the Libertarian Party of her day.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

And this is the main thrust of her argument.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Very well, then. Let’s take it from there. A weird absurdity called “competing governments”? It’s what the world has now and has had since the dawn of civilisation. A number of different governments in the same geographical area? Yes, that’s how the habitable surface of the planet has always been carved up. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction? No, let’s call it God’s green earth, a glorious gemstone floating in space. Cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately? Third rock from the sun.

Rand’s objection to anarchism amounts to no more than a description of the state of global politics. Terra firma is today divided up into a relatively small number of nation states, all controlled by governments that oppress the citizenry to a greater or, thankfully, lesser extent.

Why shouldn’t every citizen be free to “shop” and to patronise whatever government he chooses? Standard libertarian thinking is that borders should be open to peaceful people. So why don’t we have open borders globally? Because, as Rand rightly observes, forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer!

Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would mean anarchy. Which is what the world has now. Except that size does matter. Anarchists support there being a relatively huge number of nation states. Fragments of what used to be. The only limit to the number of nation states on the planet being the number of sovereign individuals.

Now consider what it is that Rand inadvertently (yeah right) is actually advocating. She’s advocating a single, monopolistic world government. That tyrannises the entire world, erasing all and any borders for inmates of what is now a prison planet to flee across. Welcome to Ayn Rand’s new world order.

Ask yourself what no competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would have to mean one world government, a statist hell on earth, and one head of state. And all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour would now be his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RxUzXzGSFA

‘Good Atheists’ and the seriousness of sin. Good God/Evil world. 6

good atheists

Several things today have stimulated me to write this post, the second being that Meme above which was posted to my Facebook page by an Atheist friend.
She commented that she actually likes ‘this Pope’, and from this meme it is easy to see why he has impressed unbelievers, and Heretics/Protestants.

On face value…. in the ordinary sense as a Protestant Libertarian I’m impressed too by the simple fact that it is a far cry from the sort of Tyrannical dogma the world has come to expect from Pontiffs, and thus it appears such moderation is a good thing for peace and harmony between The Catholic church, and the rest of us.

Yet on another very important level these Liberal sentiments which appeal to my atheist friend betray some of the most important spiritual truths which are fundamental to understanding The Lord, which leads onto the central topic of my post… The seriousness of Sin.

This Meme is true…. using a yardstick of ‘comparative goodness’.
There are/have been…. comparatively speaking…. many Good atheists, and many Evil doers whom have called themselves followers of Christ.
Eg Dawkins may say with confidence to me “I’m holier than thou!”… and indeed this may be completely true.
I have done many wicked deeds to which Dawkins may have not even come close… I know not his secrets.

Yet ultimately this rationale is a deadly trap!
Why?
Because it is using *the wrong measure*.
The true measure of Goodness in this Universe is not out shining our peers… but is Absolute Holiness… of which we all fall short.
This True measure means *We all* need the Salvation of God which is in Christ.
By God’s perfect standard… “There is none righteous… no not one…”
“For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God”.
Thankfully God is Rich in mercy and has made away for us to be saved from the righteous judgement of our wicked deeds, yet which still satisfies the demands of Justice, and allows us ourselves the liberty to choose redemption or reject it.

“For God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
“…whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved…”

good

I have written on this train of thought before and you can read a more expanded veiw here>>> Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.<<< Of course it is a very peculiar thing for atheists to claim to be 'Good' given their world view denies the veracity of ethics! This is a testament to the fact that many many atheists have not the Steel to countenance the depressing 'reality' of their own Amoral Cosmology. The hardest, most real of them look at the chaos and misery which befalls humanity and say it is a testament to the truth of their assertions... "there can be no God in such a world"... there is no right or wrong... either in Earthquakes, or Rape, or genocide.... any such feelings of injustice have no objective reality... they are merely the pathetic wimpers of Soul-less machines who have no more intrinsic value... or rights... than the stardust of which they are composed. Many simply believe you may as well Kill yourself... return to the painless meaningless nothing that you are. stephen-fry

These ideas are the subject of my first blog post in this series ‘How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.’… Click >>>Here<<< to read more. Yet it is the less consistent portion of the Atheists whom I seek to call out tonight. The ones who think their own moral virtues exonerate them from any possibility that even if they are wrong.... and it turns out that there is a god... that it is morally unthinkable that they might face damnation for their sins. As mentioned earlier via the Self righteous Rationale that comparatively speaking, they deem themselves to be not morally inferior beings, but in fact far more moral, and enlightened, and tolerant, than the great horde of savages whom have flocked into churches over the millennia. Having already pointed out the grievous error of such comparisons (first 1/2 doz paragraphs above), I would like to progress further into these disastrous rationalisms, and lay out some more Objective facts about sin, and atheist inconsistency. Setting aside the fact that Atheism is fundamentally an Amoral world view, and that therefore atheists have no 'higher ground' upon which to stand to pass down condemnation upon God and his followers... we all know that this does not faze the bulk of them from proceeding to do precisely that! Their hypocrisy goes much deeper. With one breath they will play down the seriousness of their own moral short comings as 'trivial', yet with the next shake their fists at Heaven decrying the weightiness of the manifold evils of everyone else... and curse God for his inaction! While they think nothing of their own blotches on creation, They boldly declare that no Good God would allow Hitler to rampage across Europe... as if their own existence could not be an affront to morality... yet Hitler's evils... they are God's fault! God is a Bastard on Hitler's account... but not on theirs... they are better than God, they have the right to Judge God, they conciser themselves the innocent victims of God's Amoral inaction. It matters not that all Hitler's actions stemmed from his atheistic world view. They busy themselves trying to make out Hitler was a Christian!...(a topic for another time and an interesting psychological behaviour in itself). hittttllllrrr

Having said all that I may now get down to my main points…. Our personal culpability, and the seriousness of sin.

You see the reality of things is quite different from what these atheists assert… esp the idea that God does not give a toss about the evils of humanity.

God takes sin very very very seriously!
Way more seriously than all these self-righteous God hating atheists do!
Just because God has set up the world in such a way that we human beings have moral responsibility for our own actions… which means he has left us free to act with extreme goodness or extreme Evil *does not mean* he does not care, or intends evil doers to escape Scott free.
God has declared that in his time he will balance the scales and reward everyone their due.
Hitler has not escaped judgement by fleeing to Argentina!
So these notions that God does not care, are simply false.
He has good, valid, righteous reasons, for allowing Humanity to ‘act out their own vain imaginations.
That we are freewill moral agents living in a moral universe, means that our deeds have *moral weight*…. both for good, or ill… and when we do evil… innocent people suffer… that is what it means to live in a moral universe… It is in fact impossible to claim any goodness in a reality in which evil is impossible.
That is why Robots are amoral beings… whether they perform surgeries which save lives or slaughter thousands… they have no choice in their deeds.
The moral responsibility for the actions of Robots falls back on their free-will creators who made them, and so too would God be responsible for all Hitler’s evils… if Hitler was a robot… yet he was not a robot.
In all his deeds Hitler exercised his own freewill.
Thus it is absurd to blame God for Hitler’s deeds.

I have written more on this topic… ‘We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.’ Click >>Here<< and another... 'Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.' click >>>here<<< So it is folly to suggest that Human evils are evidence against the existence or goodness of God. When Adam sinned, God took that with such seriousness that he separated himself from Mankind, and condemned us all to death! You see Adam's sin... had great moral weight.... affecting countless billions... though many will not be able to appreciate the mechanics of it... how what they see as a small act of disobedience by one man could bring such calamity upon posterity. Yet that is how serious the consequences of Sin are! They upset the entire hierarchy of reality... When Adam disobeyed God, not only did he loose faith in God's Good Character, he was dethroning God and establishing himself and his will above Gods! a little leven leveneth the whole lump! Humanity has been doing that ever since. This is part of the reason why... the pragmatic portion... of why The Standard for Goodness is 100% Holiness... not comparative goodness... not a 'statistical mean/ scale of goodness' The other portion is simply because God himself is Holy. He sets the *Ideal Goodness*. Yet God has sworn eternal Judgement upon sin! Despite what the liberal Bible doubters say... there is a hell! There is eternal damnation. Yet everyone who ends up Damned, will be damned by their own Hatred of God, their pride, and rejection of God's mercy. Jesus-Facepalm

God has seen every act of evil we all have committed and is reserving his judgement.
Yet still God is loving, compassionate, and merciful.
We may say “It’s not fair that I was born into this cursed world!”… and indeed if we were born without hope… then this may in fact be a legitimate accusation against God’s character… yet he has not utterly abandoned us to Damnation, but instead immediately set in motion his plan to redeem us… and his modus opperandi reflects his absolute justice, The seriousness with which he condemns sin, and his love and mercy…. all displayed in the crucifixion of his sinless son Jesus Christ.

In Christ’s crucifixion we see God himself suffering a grotesque fate at the hands of evil men… he is not, nor has ever been completely insulated from the sufferings of evil himself.

dawwkkknnnzz

That God deemed such a grotesque means was necessary for the payment for sin shows just how extremely seriously he takes sin to be, and how he will not allow his love to violate the principle of Justice… an eye for an eye… tooth for tooth…. The wages of sin is Death… Jesus took the full penalty of our sins upon himself.
He was not guilty of any sin himself and thus he was not subject to the penalty of death… for his own sins.

When Christ rose from the Dead, this was a testament to his victory over sin and death, and his resurrection altered the course of human history!

the-crucifixion-detail-Matthias_Grunewald2
To receive Christ a person must appreciate the gravity of their own sins.
By it’s very nature the proud will reject the crucifixion as un-necessarily barbarous.

And the greatest sin anyone can commit is to *reject the sacrifice of Christ!*
For all their fuming against God, they prove they themselves dont take sin seriously… deeming themselves to be not guilty before God.
It is a hypocritical folly of the highest order.

Yes folks it is appointed unto us once to die and after this, the judgement!
At an appointed time the dead will stand before his judgement seat, and all whose names are not found
written in the book of life shall be cast into the lake of fire… with their Father Satan… to spend eternity where they chose to be…. separated from God.
The reality of hell is a clear demonstration of how weighty a matter God considers sin to be.

In the light of these facts we see the tables turned on the atheist… the reality is *they dont consider sin to be anywhere near as serious a matter as God does….for all their accusations… it is they themselves whom are found wanting in ‘the righteous indignation department’.

Yet millions of sinners like myself will enter paradise… not because we are more righteous than our atheist friends and family, but because we simply received the Gift of God… he placed our sin upon Christ, and clothed us in Christ’s holiness.
And we will see God face to face and sing God’s praises for eternity.
Amen.

Ditch your foolish pride my neighbours, my friends… my family!
get a grip that you are a creation of God… a Moral agent.
Choose Christ and join us in the love of our Holy Heavenly Father!

Tim Wikiriwhi

Read more on this here

No Free Will = No Moral Responsibility. William Lane Craig

The Gospel of God’s Grace.

End note: I decided to tag this post onto the end of a series I started several years ago entitled ‘How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?’
I wrote those in fairly quick succession, so that there is to my mind a progression of thought.
I always meant to carry on with the series as there is no way that they can be considered to have exhausted such an important subject, yet because of procrastination I have fumbled the ball somewhat, and so this post may not fit very tidily.
That being said I think it is a topic worthy of inclusion and hopefully I shall not be so long in adding the next one.

When the Accuser comes calling…Trust in the Lord’s Good Character…Trust in his word. (Good God/Evil world part 7)

How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.

How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part 2) The Thirst for Blood.

Horror stories. How can a Good God exist when there is so much Evil in the world? (Part 3)

How can a Good God exist when there is so much Evil in the world? (Part 4) Interlude.

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

I love Racism

aynrand

I love Ayn Rand’s essay, Racism. Here are some excerpts.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control… Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stockfarm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another)—the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another)—the parents who search genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law—the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history—all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly emerging nations.”

The theory that holds “good blood” or “bad blood” as a moral-intellectual criterion, can lead to nothing but torrents of blood in practice. Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals.

Modern racists attempt to prove the superiority or inferiority of a given race by the historical achievements of some of its members. The frequent historical spectacle of a great innovator who, in his lifetime, is jeered, denounced, obstructed, persecuted by his countrymen, and then, a few years after his death, is enshrined in a national monument and hailed as a proof of the greatness of the German (or French or Italian or Cambodian) race—is as revolting a spectacle of collectivist expropriation, perpetrated by racists, as any expropriation of material wealth perpetrated by communists.

Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements—and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

Even if it were proved—which it is not—that the incidence of men of potentially superior brain power is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one’s judgment of him. A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as an inferior because his race has “produced” some brutes—or the claim of a German brute to the status of a superior because his race has “produced” Goethe, Schiller and Brahms.

These are not two different claims, of course, but two applications of the same basic premise. The question of whether one alleges the superiority or the inferiority of any given race is irrelevant; racism has only one psychological root: the racist’s sense of his own inferiority.

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

To ascribe one’s virtues to one’s racial origin, is to confess that one has no knowledge of the process by which virtues are acquired and, most often, that one has failed to acquire them. The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a “tribal self-esteem” by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe. Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

Historically, racism has always risen or fallen with the rise or fall of collectivism. Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to “society,” to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

Racism was first published in the September 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. Click here to read the essay in its entirety.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his everlasting life for his friends

image3

Jesus said

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

Jesus also said

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (KJV)

Jesus didn’t say

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his everlasting life for his friends.

But suppose that he did. (I added ‘everlasting’ just for the sake of this blog post. It’s an awkward insertion to make you think.)

If you had a ticket to everlasting life, but you had a friend who was destined to eternal conscious torment in hell (or even destined merely to personal annihilation), would you gladly trade places with that friend?

In the early days of Eternal Vigilance I posted this letter by Ayn Rand. In it, the usually hostile-to-Christianity Rand tries to cozy up to one Reverend Dudley. She claims that

The first duty of a Christian is the salvation of his own soul. This duty comes above any he may owe to his brothers.

and goes on to say that the foregoing “is the basic statement of true individualism.”

What is the first duty of a Christian? And what is the essence of true individualism? Is Rand right?

I think Rand’s wrong on both counts. Certainly, Rand’s “gospel in a nutshell” is a caricature of Christianity. Thus the question remains. If you had a ticket to everlasting life, but you had a friend who was destined to eternal conscious torment in hell (or even destined merely to personal annihilation), would you gladly trade places with that friend?

(The second duty of a Christian is to love his neighbour as himself. Toss a coin, maybe?)

What have I been using for brains? (Friday ramble)

2014-12-03-ScreenShot20141203at3.15.57PM

Nathaniel Branden, best known for his adulterous liaison with Ayn Rand, has died at the age of 84. And Jim Peron, best known in New Zealand for his forthright views on pedophilia, has written an approbatory encomium for the Huffington Post.

Regarded by my co-blogger Tim as “probably the best Objectivist of them all,” Branden is better known as the author of the self-help book The Psychology of Self-Esteem. Branden’s work is well regarded, and not just by Objectivists. Really, I suppose, it’s a book I should read. (And I am without excuse. I confirm that I own a copy. I just exhumed it from the stacks!)

Let’s hear it from the man himself on the topic of self-esteem and libertarianism. The talk below is insightful and thought-provoking and has an important message for libertarian activists.

Awesome, huh? Now, let us praise with faint damnation.

I realised just the other day that all libertarians I’ve ever known (including me) are apt to commit a nasty semantic sin. See if you can spot it in the transcript below.

I think that one of the toughest battles in conversations with people and trying to get people to understand the libertarian vision is to understand ourselves and to find a way to communicate that we take something for granted that many people do not. The libertarian mentality is a non-entitlement mentality. The libertarian mentality presuppposes a person’s willingness to accept responsibility for his or her own existence.

Did you spot it? The libertarian mentality is absolutely an entitlement mentality! Libertarians emphatically believe that they are fully entitled to the fruits of their own labours. Entitlement? Check it out in any dictionary. Or Google it. You’ll see that entitlement is “the fact of having a right to something.” Am I entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Yes I am!

But you’ll also see that a second sense of the word ‘entitlement’ now also has currency. This modern entitlement is “the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.” In other words, ‘entitlement’ has come to mean entitlement to that which one is not entitled. And that, dear readers, is the death of the word ‘entitlement’. It’s been turned into an abominable auto-antonym.
(Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.)

Now, let’s get back to the salaciousness of it all. What was Rand using for brains when she decided to cuckold poor old Frank O’Connor? Commenter Brendan Hutching has the answer to that on the Objectivist forum SOLO.

I’m plumping for the moistie. Rand would not be the first woman to be led astray by the stirring of her loins, prompted by a silly, adolescent fantasy about the redemptive power of a white knight’s mighty sword.

So, what about Branden? What was he using for brains? Was he thinking with his big head or his little head? Hutching has the answer to that, too.

Branden was an ambitious young man, keen to make his mark. An affair with a mentor is a standard behaviour for people on their way up.

Perhaps you can now see why many Rand-worshippers despise Nathaniel Branden. (They despise his ex-wife Barbara Branden, who passed away last December, even more so.) On Facebook, my co-blogger Tim notes

no one having the Balls to pay her the Tribute she was due… and I’ll eat my hat if any Kiwi objectivist writes a tribute for Nat.

So I checked out Tim’s prediction. So far, so good. The tributes to Nathaniel Branden on SOLO are from Tom Burroughes (a British Objectivist) and Kyrel Zantanovich (a U.S. Objectivist). Then I popped on over to PC’s blog, Not PC. Nothing there so far …

But I did find an interesting recent post with the title Brain science without the brain, tagged with the label Philosophy.

Daniel Wolpert thinks we don’t have a brain to “perceive the world or think” (presumably then he thought up with his own notion with his appendix, or perhaps his descending retroperitoneal colon). That, he says, “is completely wrong.”

No, “we have a brain for one reason and one reason only,” says our Mr Wolbert, “and that’s to produce adaptable and complex movements. There is no other reason to have a brain … once you don’t need to move, you don’t need the luxury of that brain.”

So while philosophers and psychologists have for centuries investigated the modes and magic of human thought, and even as we speak computer scientists are busy trying to replicate the thinking human brain in silicon, alleged neuroscientists like Mr Wolbert are instead trying to study the repository of human thought and perception without reference to either perception or thought.

Recently, I said that I’d be blogging more on philosophy and less on politics. In today’s world there’s a desperate need for more philosophy and less politics. So I’ll begin with pointing out the confusion (and implicit contradiction) in PC’s post.

I think PC is confusing what the brain is for with what the brain does. I haven’t listened to Wolpert’s TED talk (yet) so I’ll take an educated guess. I don’t think that Wolpert denies that the brain does perceive and think. What Wolpert denies is that it’s for perceiving and thinking. Wolpert, you see, is an Evolutionist and Evolutionists like to explain all human morphology and behavioural traits by reference to the selection pressures faced by our human (and not-so-human) ancestors.

Has there ever been a need to perceive and think in our postulated four billion year evolutionary history? Not directly, no, there hasn’t. There’s only ever been a need “to produce adaptable and complex movements” by some mechanism. Evolutionists ask us to believe that the miraculous human brain is what random mutation threw up to meet this need and thus was seized upon by natural selection. Now, I remain firmly agnostic about the theory of evolution, but I can’t help but smell a whiff of bullshit here.

I find it disconcerting that Evolutionists so seldom follow through and buy into the logical implications of their own atheistic materialism. Or at least acknowledge that they are maintaining contradictions. A raft of them. Rand would spew.

I suspect that Rand was smart enough to recognise that her conception of man (which is the cornerstone of her philosophy) would prove false if the theory of evolution were shown to be true. Nathaniel Branden wrote the following in his essay The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.” I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?” She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God’s creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

There’s no place for love, beauty or morality in a purely material world.

I’m going to give the last word on this to my co-blogger Tim because I think he nails it. He alludes to

more than just the beauty of Woman… I am saying *Beauty* itself, and my ability to experience it is evidence of God…. beautiful beaches…. sunsets……too prove this.
Thus I am saying that my sense of beauty here is more than just a genetic/ sexual urge… Thus I find a Female butterfly to be Beautiful… and a Male Peacock… and this carries over into sound, taste, smell… etc.
Why I make this point Re : Beauty is because before I was a theist, it never occurred to me just how spectacular was this relationship between the beauty of Creation, and my ability to perceive it. after my conversion it dawned on me that all this could have existed and yet if I was ‘born a tree’ I would never have appreciated any of it! Never tasted a peach… never smelled a rose…. never herd a birds song… never appreciated the sun setting over the ocean… Ie My perception was heightened as to just how miraculously God had made me… so as to be able to apprehend his greatness as an artist… The beauty of God.
On a facebook tread discussing my assertions an Atheist tried to say my ‘feelings’ and sence of beauty were merely a product of ‘Nurture’… not nature.
I retorted… Give me a break! What I am talking about is something which is a fundamental capacity designed in human beings to the degree that it’s absence would be a mental handicap… nothing to do with cultural relativism.”

To me Naturalistic theories not only struggle to explain The happy conditions of Life on Earth, they really become absurd when you realise that the Atheist must believe that not only is every beautiful thing merely the product of a giant explosion, but that our sense of beauty itself must be explained thereby… as merely another property of matter.

There is a God!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuNr_tSqxc

Insidious Evil . When ethics are used as a weapon against you.

quote-force-and-mind-are-opposites-morality-ends-where-a-gun-begins-ayn-rand-150942

Ayn Rand could not be more wrong.
Despite the reality that Satan will try and use your virtue and morality against you, the truth is when guns are pulled *morality becomes absolutely essential!*
It is essential that the virtuous remain distinguishable from the Wicked.

I’m going to dig deeper into the subject of ‘Ethical conduct’ in war… which was the topic of my last blogpost…Here>>> ‘IDF Code of Ethics. Fighting a just fight.’

in particular the dilemma’s being faced by the IDF in retaliation to Hamas Terror campaign against the Civilian population of Israel, I read an interesting (and pertinent) article in today’s NZ Herald.
An Israeli organisation of Ex IDF military were very critical of how the Israeli operations in Gaza were being conducted, esp the use of artillery in civilian (urban) areas as being immoral, and decried the heavy casualties being borne by the civilians of Gaza.
This is a very interesting line of reasoning considering the IDF’s Code of ethics.
They argue that while they respect the Israeli Defence Force’s duty to defend Israel, they insist the use of artillery is *immoral* because in their opinion artillery is an *imprecise weapon*, and therefore cannot but result in careless damage/ harm to property and Non-combatants.

*********************************************
Read the NZ Herald story >>> Ex-soldiers’ group speaks out to condemn Israeli shelling of civilians

“Davidovich, 27, educational director for the ex-soldiers’ group Breaking the Silence, served in field intelligence during Operation Pillar of Defence, a previous Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza in 2012. He says he was repeatedly ordered to help prepare for the firing of artillery during the hostilities.

“We got orders every day that at 5pm we will shoot artillery. We prepared all day for this, but in the end it didn’t happen. It was surrealistic to see kids playing in Beit Hanoun … I don’t remember that anyone ever spoke about the civilian population. I thought to myself, ‘How can you fire without harming civilians?’ Artillery is an imprecise weapon. Artillery fire to an area inhabited by civilians cannot be moral, we trained on open areas.”
*********************************************

An-Israeli-mobile-artillery-unit-fires-a-shell-towards-Gaza-from-its-position-outside-the-central-Gaza-Strip-January-6-2009.-REUTERSBaz-Ratner-ISRAEL-960x616

Speaking from past experience Ex soldiers and members of ‘Breaking the silence’ said it was horrible to be asked by Commanders to ready the artillery for firing into ‘high population’ areas thinking “How can we fire into areas full of innocent civilians?”
As an example They said that it is very easy in the heat of battle for mistakes to occur regarding the various weights and payloads of projectiles which are being fired, which can result in ‘Bigger bangs’, or projectiles landing several hundred meters off target.

They also didn’t think giving warnings prior to a strike for the civilian population to evacuate the area absolved culpability for civilian casualties, of those people whom for whatever reason ignored the warnings.
They reported training exercises in which Commanders contradicted the IDF code of ethics imploring their soldiers to take no thought of ‘Collateral Damage’ when seeking to fulfil the objectives of their mission. eg ” If you gotta blow up a Mosque…. blow it up!”

I noted there was no mention of being callous with regards to civilian lives in this criticism.

Spokesmen for the IDF said this group has a history of making unjustifiable criticisms, and that their comments could be used by the enemy against Israel.

APTOPIX Mideast Israel Palestinians

I have made some inquiries with experienced military personnel seeking their perspective as to whether or not modern artillery can be considered to be a precise weapon.
I asked how close would they call in artillery support?
To what degree of accuracy you would expect ‘the first shell’ to hit a target with GPS co ordinates?

Here is two responses I received from US Vets…

Justin said… “I personally wouldn’t call it in no less than 300 meters from my position which is danger close and as far as accuracy it depends on the ppl firing the rounds”

James said… “Exactly what Justin said. I will add that the only time I would use danger close is if my POS was in imminent threat of take over by the enemy. (See movie platoon, final fight scene.) I would do that if I had to. As far as it being accurate I would trust only 2 FISTERS to lay down accurate arty fire under danger close and if they trusted the crews behind the guns then so would I.”

These responses add credence to the criticisms raised by ‘Breaking the silence’ that Artillery is not a prudent weapon to use in urban Gaza.

Surely there would be better/ more accurate weaponry available to the Israeli commanders.
Artillery rounds may be more economical, yet because they are inaccurate, their use would suggest their use has resulted from commanders whom don’t place Ethical considerations as a priority, and so it would appear that though Hamas is undoubtedly responsible for the Lions share of Misery and death in Gaza, that sadly Israel cannot claim to be absolutely blameless.

Another friend of mine suggested that Israel may in fact be using high tek Guided artillery shells.

This is a very important unanswered question.
The spokesman for the IDF made no attempt to argue that they were using such high tek shells, and so in absence of such assurance, I dont think Israel can consistently claim that *all Civilian casualties* have resulted from Hamas using Human shields.
And this being so, the use of Artillery in Gaza means that Both sides have acted unethically… and unfortunately it is the innocent Palestinian Children whom pay the price.

It is a testimony to the great liberty enjoyed by the people of Israel that ex soldiers can form an association which is vocally critical of their own military, and express compassion for the people of Gaza, and whom boldly raise such important questions regarding the ethical conduct of their own Army superiors.

I would be very surprised if Hamas would tolerate *anyone* questioning their use of ‘human shields’…. weapons training of Children, etc.
I would say that any brave enough to do so risks being labelled a traitor… and being murdered… swiftly.

If anyone can dispute my assertion I would appreciate being corrected.

(update: The links below suggests Hamas dont tolerate Palestinian criticism for their actions
Angry Palestinians Attack Hamas Official Over Gaza Destruction

Palestinians in Gaza Try Anti-War Protest, Hamas Executes Them )

j_street_u_wash_u_1_0

Thus while I appreciate ‘the PR problem’ for the IDF when it receives criticism about it’s conduct of the battle from it’s own people, yet in truth having the liberty to criticise the government and military is in reality a wonderful testament to the liberal Civilisation of Israel, which stands in stark contrast to the Tyrannies run by it’s enemies.

I also hasten to add that if the critics are correct in their assertions…. and it certainly appears that they are…. that it is extremely callous to use artillery bombardment, thus it is not the critics whom ought to be ashamed, or blamed for any PR capital Hamas gain from such public accusations *The fault lies squarely with the Military Commanders* whom are not following the IDF Code of ethics.
*They are harming* the Israeli cause.
*They are stepping off the moral high ground*
*They ought to be replaced with Better/ more moral commanders*

article-2695540-1FB0900500000578-926_964x683

What interests me most is that these criticisms are not being made by Tree hugging Liberals facebooking from Starbucks in Hollywood, but from experienced military personnel whom have seen action.
Thus they ought to be *more realistic about the nature of war*… yet they seem to believe Israel could be handling things much better… resulting in less unnecessary misery and death of innocent non-combatants and their property.

On the flip side it could be argued that the horrors and realities of War have so traumatised the members of ‘Breaking the silence’ that they suffer ‘Diminished capacity’ to some degree and are *not capable* of clearly appreciating what must be done… under the circumstances.

Perhaps the Israeli commanders can honestly say they are conducting operations so as to achieve the objectives of the IDF with minimal loss of life, and damage to property.

That to me seems a very hard sale.

I do appreciate though, that when a Commander tells his troops not to hesitate blowing up a mosque if they must, he’s telling them to look out for their own safety… dont let ‘politically correct’ niceties get you killed.

We all know that Hamas are employing despicable tactics which are war crimes… apparently a Hamas textbook on tactics has been captured which contains the Hamas rationale regards the use of Human shields.

*Read about Hamas Stratagems knowing Human shields are a problem for Israeli forces seeking to minimise Civilian casualties, and for Hate Propaganda >>>Here<<< We have herd reports about Hamas preventing Gaza residents from evacuating when Israel has warned of a strike. We have seen countless photos of 'The Brave Hamas' firing their weapons from behind civilians standing in the middle of Combat... and it is inconceivable that these people would be standing there if they were free to take cover.... they are obviously told to stay put, or have their families slaughtered. Then we see Hamas Parading the Dead 'parents and children' saying "Israel is too scared to fight Hamas, and so they slaughter families instead". Hamas is fighting a despicable War of Lies seeking to breed hatred of Israel, and Isolate Israel from her western allies. And it is a testament to the foolishness and wilful, growing anti-Semitism in the West that so much of the lies of Hamas and other Fanatical Islamic terrorist groups are lapped up and endorsed by Politicians about the globe... in the UN .... even here in New Zealand by Labours Phil Goff, and (no surprise) by Mana party Leader Hone Harawera. ham scum

I have no doubt that Hamas is not only the aggressor in this conflict, but is also with respect to its Anti-Semitism fundamentally a psychotic criminal organisation on a Par with Hitler’s Nazi’s.
I don’t believe there can be peace with such organisations, and that Israel is fully justified in destroying them all.
I am simply asking the question whether or not they are maintaining the high ground with how they conduct their military.

War sux!
There can be no disputing this, and it is understandable that those whom have seen war up close can become disgusted, and seek to bring the carnage to an end.

Yet it is wrong to automatically think that military commanders ‘enjoy war’… or deny that they are seeking to restore peace with minimum loss of life.

When you are dealing with the likes of Hamas… it’s always going to be an ugly barbaric affair.
Innocent people will die in large numbers…. in do believe Hamas must bear the lions share for the misery of Gaza.

Update: 8-8-14.
I received another professional Military opinion regarding the use of Artillery.
Mike says…. Essentially, Forward Observers will call in indirect fire as close as it is needed to safely suppress, neutralize, or destroy the enemy – end of story. The general rule of thumb for danger close is 600 meters for cannon, rocket, or mortars, 1,000 meters for naval gun fire, and 2,000 meters for MLRS. This is just a warning to the individuals who carry out these missions, and NOT RESTRICTIONS. Just because friendly troops, civilians, or sensitive structures are with in the danger close zone does not mean rounds will not be dropped. When used correctly, Field Artillery can be used as a sniper rifle that is guaranteed to destroy it’s target without putting friendly forces in danger.

There are risk to using Field Artillery in an urban environment, especially one as contested as Palestine. However, I will tell you this; the Field Artillery units in Israel are striking targets with pin point accuracy in such a manner that mitigates collateral damage. Their willingness and ability to utilize state of the art technology and proper planning in the deployment of their Field Artillery assets has enabled them to eliminate enemy targets in such a manner that actually posses less collateral damage and loss of life to Israeli soldiers and Palestine civilians, then sending in droves of ground forces throughout Palestine.”

*********
^^^Thus there is a *Moral argument* which can be tabled in support the use of Artillery… suggesting it can be very accurate, reduces casualties suffered by Israeli infantry, and ultimately results in Less misery and property damage.

Watch a video about what the IDF is up against >>> Here<<< Thus the terrible dilemma's faced in war by Commanders and troops is weighing up the cost/ risk to innocent civilian lives and property against the safety and ultimate success of your own troops... which ultimately could bring the conflict to a swifter end and thus save lives on all sides. One thing is certain... Hamas are the dirty dealers.... choosing to base their attacks from within the living space of the Palestinian people.... out of a sheer evil intent to gain safety for their own fighters... at the expense of the safety of the Palestinian people. Update: A clear Moral argument is presented in my later blog post>>>> Raining V2s. Proportionality of force in military law. British Army Col Richard Kemp on civilian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

*********

Looking at the wake of WW1, and what Chamberlain was willing to surrender to Hitler under the delusion of achieving ‘Peace in his time’… and how ultimately his gullible and effeminate submission to the Evil Machiavellian brought not peace… but a monumental tyranny and oceans of Blood…. both Military and civilian… we ought to appreciate why “Never Again”… is a byword in Israel.
I just hope they better maintain the distinction of what separates the virtuous from the Unholy.
The IDF needs to review their strategy.

Commanding a defence force against such an insidious evil as Hamas takes gargantuan Balls… and just like Winston Churchill seeking to Defeat the Nazis… and the Dresden Bombing, or The decision to Drop the A Bombs in Japan… these Actions won the War and *that Generation* was grateful for the boldness of their leaders, and had little doubt that these actions were justifiable, though later generations…. in the comfort of the Liberty they enjoy because of the Bravery and leadership decisions of the War generation… boldly label Churchill and co… mass murderers.

Ingratitude?
It’s a little too easy for some of us to prance about talking about Ends and Means when we don’t carry any weight of responsibility.

Ultimately God will judge.

In the meantime…. “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”
Jesus Christ Matt 5vs 9

compassion-soldier-looking-out-for-children

May God’s grace be poured out upon the Earth, and his Kingdom of Peace come quickly.

The urgency of the Gospel has never been greater.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

*Special thanks to US Military Vets Justin, James, and Mike for their objective opinions regarding Artillery.
I take full responsibility for how the information they supplied was utilised in this blogpost, and in no way are they responsible for the opinion expressed herein.*

Read more…

IDF Code of Ethics. Fighting a just fight.

The Diabolical tactics of Hamas: What the IDF is up against.

How does the Israeli Defence Force minimize civilian casualties?

RIP Matt Judd. Tributes to a Veteran of the War to Liberate Iraq.

“One Day”. The Peace Song of Our Generation. Matisyahu.