“Whilst I cannot speak with authority regarding the rest of the country, Matabeleland is in the grips of one of the worst droughts we have suffered since 1991/1992. Aside from the poor rainfall, temperatures have soared. Whatever crops were planted after early rains have frazzled and are generally a total write off. Even if it rains now crop yields across the entire country will be markedly lower than normal.
Poor people are telling me that their relatives in rural areas are already short of food, if not starving. There is little sign that the government is doing anything about the growing crisis. Robert Mugabe and his family flew out to the Far East on holiday just before Christmas as if nothing was wrong. The State controlled newspapers are largely silent about the growing crisis. Yesterday when I first raised the issue on twitter all I got from the only ZANU PF Minister who is regularly on twitter – Jonathan Moyo – was his usual torrent of abuse.
The fact is that this is potentially a far worse crisis than we have ever experienced before. When we last had a drought of this magnitude in 1992 the Grain Marketing Board was better run and our silos were much fuller. For the last 15 years the GMB has been run inefficiently and corruptly. During the same period commercial farmers have been hounded off their land in pursuit of ZANU PF’s deleteriously bad land policies, in the process removing many of those with the skills to fully exploit our irrigation dams in commercial farm areas. Sadly although communal land farmers are excellent dry land farmers, when rains fail their yields plummet, which is precisely what is happening this year. Fly over Zimbabwe today and you will still see dams throughout the country in former commercial farm areas which still have substantial quantities of water in them, but which are lying unutilized. In other words there is little domestic fall back capacity as there was before.
What compounds the situation even further is that the entire region is facing a similar drought and countries such as Zambia and South Africa will need all of their own production to feed their own people. One thing we can be certain of is that ZANU PF’s so called “all weather friends”, Russia and China will not provide any significant food aid – they never have before and have little capacity to do so now. This means we will have to turn to countries such as the USA for assistance. We will have to import from other continents which takes time and costs a lot of money, neither of which we have.
The sooner this is declared to be what it is – a national emergency – the better. Mugabe needs to come home from the Far East; he is leader of this nation and all leaders need to be with their people in times of crisis. We need Ministers in the rural areas assessing the crisis. We need the appropriate Ministers flying to countries with food reserves to secure food supplies. We need to alert the international community that people will starve if funding isn’t mobilised. In short we need action, not an Ostrich mentality.
Finally we need to address the root causes of our failure to be able to feed ourselves in times of drought. Firstly we need to clean up the GMB and appoint competent and honest people to run it. Secondly we need to recognise that all Zimbabweans must be allowed to farm. The current racist policy of denying white Zimbabweans with skills the right to farm must end. Whilst tragically very few white commercial farmers are left in the country those who are still here and who have the skills to grow crops must be allowed to farm. Thirdly we need to invest more in programmes such as Foundation for Farming which promote zero tillage agriculture, which has been proven to produce greater yields in drought conditions. Fourthly we need to end the hostile rhetoric directed against the very countries which in all likelihood will now come to our assistance. We need to cooperate with those countries so that they invest in our Nation rather than shun us.
Finally we all need to pray that the good Lord will have mercy on our land.”
Kim Dotcom speaks out
The judiciary in this country has compromised itself by rolling over for the fascist state and for the Empire. The people of NZ stands accused of indifference (at the very least), with Evil.
25 December, 2015
The past several years have been a roller-coaster ride for Internet mogul Kim Dotcom. As he continues to fight an aggressive government determined to extradite him to the United States to face serious criminal charges, this Christmas Day the Megaupload founder recaps his case here on TorrentFreak.
I thought this Christmas I would recount with you some of my experiences over the last four years to help bolster debate on what is an appropriate role for government in the Internet copyright policy debate between Hollywood and Internet technologies.
I continue to have hope that the New Year will bring freedom for my colleagues and me, hope to millions of others striving for fair and predictable rules governing the Internet, and wisdom to political leaders for making good decisions on whether and how armed police forces and government spies should be utilized in Internet copyright matters.
1. Raid and Seizure of Nearly Everything
It has been almost four years since helicopters and paramilitary police officers descended on my peaceful mansion in Coatesville, New Zealand.
As a personal birthday gift from the United States government, armed with automatic weapons, side harms, bullet-proof vests and attack dogs, they pulled my pregnant wife, infant children, staff and friends out into the cold morning air to make a Hollywood spectacle of an arrest that could have been executed with a simple knock on my door.
So began my first-hand education in the high-stakes game of international copyright law, extradition treaties, global politics and the power Hollywood wields through the U.S. government.
Just after the raid my attorney, Ira Rothken, aptly stated that the government was acting like a “copyright extremist” by taking down one of the world’s largest cloud storage services “without any notice or chance for Megaupload to be heard in a court of law.” The result is both “offensive to the rights of Megaupload but also to the rights of millions of consumers worldwide” who stored personal data with the service.
That same day, the U.S. government enlisted authorities in Hong Kong, Germany, New Zealand, the Philippines, Canada and the Netherlands to seize every asset imaginable, from bank accounts to computer servers, from cars to mobile phones. I, of course, watched from a jail cell – guilty until proven innocent. It would take about a month and a ton of legal wrangling before the court released me on bail.
Read on….>>> Seemorerocks
These are dark times in the world. Evil and hate and corruption are everywhere. Terrorists shoot up concert halls, blow up aeroplanes and destroy lives. Politicians spew hate and bile, and the internet is a cesspit of anger and destructive language. Meanwhile, even love itself is debased through confusion with sexual gratification. Things that God created as good are corrupted and debased and confused. God, or even goodness, seems far away.
Whatever one believes about God, or theology, or metaphysics, we know that the world is in bad shape. It needs salvation of some sort. There needs to be hope somehow and somewhere. And we know that this hope cannot come from mere humanity – our humanity is what got us into this mess. What we need is divinity, one way or another. We need to reconnect with that part of ourselves that is pure and good and superhuman. We see this idea even in atheist philosophers like Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Rand. But in all these cases of seeking to make gods out mortals, humanity has ended up even less divine and even less human. We are helpless to solve the corruption of the world by ourselves.
It is into this darkness, the Winter Solstice of the world, right when we cannot see or find Him, that God comes. And not just invisibly, or metaphorically, or intellectually, or even merely spiritually, but He takes on human flesh from a human woman, a lowly temple acolyte, and becomes one of us. We cannot be divine, so God becomes human. He becomes a little baby, real, tangible and present in the world as the God-Man. And in doing so, He begins His work to restore the world. Christ is born! He is here! He has arrived! Our saviour has arrived! There is Hope in all the hopelessness of the world!
I believe that this is why Christmas is so universal and so appealing to the world. Of course Easter/Pascha is more important – what could be more important than Christ rising from the dead and defeating death? But there is sorrow there too – Christ must first die. Christmas, however, has no downside – a baby is born, there is peace on earth and goodwill to all men! Anyone can get behind that – Christians, atheists, and anyone else in between.
As Stephen Colbert, for all his faults, once sang, “There are much worse things to believe in.” Christmas is something that can be true for everyone, even if not everyone thinks it’s true.
I’ve seen a lot of crap online lately, from people saying Christmas is just a crude copy of pagan myths (why isn’t it the fulfilment of them?), that it’s just an appropriation of pagan festivals (it isn’t, or the Church would have a Summer Solstice substitute as well – it doesn’t), that it was “invented” by the Roman Catholics (it was always celebrated one way or another), and that the date of December 25th is arbitrary (it isn’t, it’s calculated from the Bible at fifteen months from Zachariah’s vision at Yom Kippur, and was finally universally adopted by the Church in the late 4th Century). Christmas is real. God walks with men again. Christ is Born! Glorify Him! And even if you don’t believe that, you can believe in the Hope that Christmas brings. It’s a Hope that surely has a better chance of saving this sad corrupt world than anything else.
Anyone who’s spent any time in serious study of the Bible (or even someone who’s only delved into it intermittently) will have discovered, for themselves, apparent contradictions, of which there are very, very many.
Just for example, Ezekiel 33:11 (and Ezekiel 18:32) and Psalm 37:13 seem rather at odds.
Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ (NIV)
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. (NIV)
How should a Christian respond to such apparent contradictions? It’s not easy maintaining contradictions. Maintaining a contradiction is surely the very essence of cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance is something we all naturally seek to minimise.
Of particular concern are the apparent contradictions in Bible verses about salvation. Is justification through good works or by faith alone? Enquiring minds want to know.
The inerrantist response is to hold that the Bible is inerrant. On the premiss (due to Douglas Stauffer) that
God will preserve His word, and not allow it to pass away.
And then try to explain away the apparent contradictions. All of them. One attempt to do this (with particular emphasis on what the Bible says about salvation) is the doctrine of Dispensationalism due to John Nelson Darby.
Now, I can see that the above premiss has merit and that Dispensationalism is, in some sense, a reasonable response to the apparent contradictions in the Bible.
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (NIV)
Dispensationalism is complicated. Doesn’t God’s fundamental message have to be intelligible to little children and simpletons? Because Dispensationalism isn’t.
The errantist response is to hold that the Bible is not inerrant. To concede that it’s full of contradictions, some of which cannot be adequately explained away. But that, nonetheless
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (KJV)
and that Jesus’s fundamental message remains intact, which it does.
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)
My reason for writing this post is my concern that those who hold that the Bible is inerrant are fooling themselves. In a bad way. Notwithstanding that Douglas Stauffer (already quoted above) tells us that
Satan has reveled in creating doubt concerning the authority of the words of God.
the simple fact is that there is doubt concerning the authority of scripture as it has been handed down to us. Not to acknowledge and to express doubt such as this is to deceive oneself and maybe others too. It’s my considered opinion that those who persist in maintaining that the Bible is inerrant are involved in more convolutions and contortions than David Bain trying to explain his movements on the morning of 20 June 1994, more turns than a sluggard on his bed, more preposterous suspensions of disbelief than an atheist proclaiming that this blog post is an anticipated result of the Big Bang. They’re playing the exegetical version of Twister—the game that ties you up in knots.
Beware my friends, It’s that time of year when shysters seek to relieve you of your hard earned cash… and I’m not talking about the marketing Gurus of the Warehouse or Briscoes.
You think the Santa parade is a good show?
Well the Police also enjoy performing their own Pantomimes… yet they are not that entertaining.
We all suffer the anguish of Xmas commercialism and the Police arn’t shy of cashing in too.
Out of the goodness of their hearts, the Police have already implemented their 4km in-tolerance for the months of December and January.
They have already started writing themselves cheques at our expense, and acting out the charade that they are doing their bit to keep us safe on the roads by pinging us at every opportunity they get… Funny Buggers… the joke is on us… because as we are all painfully aware… this strategy is Bogus!
They are making millions… This is Tax gathering disguised as Law and order… they are literally using the carnage and Mayhem on our roads to justify their extortion racket!
Yet still…. like so many other weekends and holidays that this Rapine has been imposed, our Roads are just as drenched in blood and guts … maybe even worse!
7 people died in traffic accidents this weekend. Read about it > Weekend road deaths ‘heartbreaking’
In a recent article … Motorong editor rubbishes campaign
The police’s reduced speed tolerance will be of little benefit to road safety over December and January, say Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the car review website dogandlemon.com.
“However much the government tries to massage the figures, the reality is that about 80% of fatalities occur at speeds below the legal limit. Therefore, to claim that ticketing mildly speeding drivers will substantially lower the road toll is simply nonsense,” Mr Matthew-Wilson says.
Think about this:
Some people believe *Principles* are important, irrespective of what negative consequence may arise as a result of them.
They say it is best for society to remain true to these ideals… in spite of any chaos that ensues because they believe that justice is absolutely above everything else… and ultimately also expedient.
*That there is no valid contradiction between Just policy, and the best outcome.*
In Law, a prohibition which the people do not find legitimate, will never work but cause the Law to stink.
Some people dont believe in principles, instead they are pragmatists who believe almost any means is justifiable… if it gets a desired result.
They like to think of themselves ‘as Realists’.
A realist ought to think twice when they begin to see their experiments have failed.
Then you get the complete idiots.
They dont bother with principles either, yet they dont even take into consideration pragmatic realities, but death-grip onto any absurd notion even after it has proven to be worse than useless.
They are hell bent on persevering with failed ideas out of a sheer incapacity to think.
They cannot fathom any possible alternatives… esp if the alternatives require a complete about face and the courage to try a new direction.
Now ask yourself in respect to this ongoing failed and heavy handed strategy regarding stricter Speed-limits…. are you one of these complete Idiots… or are you one of the other two types of thinking people?
If you claim you are not a member of the Idiots, then I ask why so many of you are not spitting the Dummy over the travesty of 4km intolerance on Speed on our roads, given that it has proven to be a complete farce?
Why do you allow yourselves to be molested at times of celebration by an army of parasites, who hide in the shaddows like Villains ready to pounce?
Why do you allow your wallets to be emptied… and your pleasant travels to be rudely interfered with by Bullies and robbers with badges?
If in the light of all the evidence you still insist this predatory extortion racket is for the public good…. well then I say you are an Idiot…because and I repeat…the facts are indisputable…. all the heavy handed fines and impositions (such as the lower drinking limits) are not reducing the carnage on the road one iota!
You are like the Police (and government)… bereft of New and better strategies… and too scared to tell them to back off, and quit their harassment.
The whole roading safety strategy needs a rethink, and a change in focus.
I’m not advocating anarchy, but smarter approaches… using the tools available.
Such as more No overtaking lines where obviously there is limited visibility for a distance, yet also having more overtaking lanes, and slow vertical lanes so that people can safely get past on stretches where crossing the white line is hazardous.
Not only does this present obvious safety advantages, but less obvious if combined with the police *not being so Fascist about speed, and the government passing reforms that allow even greater speeds on the best sections of highway, this will generate *more respect* from users, and a safer culture of driving to the conditions… understanding the logic that a Smarter road strategy allows people to go faster where appropriate, and reduces the stretches where slow moving vehicles can provoke rash maneuvers by people anxious to get past.
Make the best roads faster and you will get less speeders on the country back roads.
Get away from the ‘Cops are your enemy’ mindset that heavy handed ticketing is all about.
*Bust REAL dangerous drivers only*.
People who do dangerous/ reckless maneuvers, leaving others traveling at speed in obviously ideal conditions alone.
These are just a few ideas that could be an alternative to the current rapacious bully tactics of the police that is not only a failure, but as a result generates a severe disrespect for them and the law.
We should be brave enough to try!
The definition of folly is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.
Dont you think it’s kinda ridiculous to even believe the idea that the Police *can bring down the road toll*???
Where did that nutty idea even come from?
Did they themselves assume this roll like superman?
This whole business was nothing more than a ruse from the start… to wrangle more power for themselves.
It’s a gimmick to fool the dopey into accepting being being hounded and fleeced like sheep.
It simply cannot be the Polices job to ‘End the carnage on the road’… and it certainly is not their job to treat us like cash cows… remember they work for us and we have the right to enjoy the use our roads free of molestation.
The police need a serious attitude adjustment.
And realistically we must accept that accidents will happen.
No amount of social engineering can eliminate the human factor.
If we really want things to change, then we must start voicing our demands at every opportunity… create/ join lobby groups that protest against the Status quo.
Write to AA, Write to your Mp’s, demanding they put a stop to this mickey mouse behavior of the police.
Demand they show us all more respect.
Demand a Culture change within the Police force, and stop voting for Nanny Statists whom have no fresh ideas… but love flogging that dead horse… of Less freedoms, Heavier fines…
Spend time thinking up ways to bring in reforms rather than more mutton fisted misery.
I must add some balance.
I am sure many police sincerely believe their activities are just, after all… they are following what their bosses say is supposed to help keep us safe.
I’m sure that some are well aware that this strategy is a failure… yet they are expected to dish out their quota of infringements.
All this exposes the systemic problems.
Any caring police officers should be working within the system for reforms, and should not support further impositions upon the people they serve.
It was never the lower drinking limits that were the problem.
It was never the people doing 120 along the motorway either.
I hope my blog at least stimulates some dialogue and debate.
I personally have had a guts full of the current extortion and Pig headed attitude we get from Parliament on down to those we employ to catch Robbers and rapists.
This Xmas Commercialism must end.
New Zealand Biker.
This morning I severed communications with one of New Zealands most vocal opponents to Waitangi Apartheid.
This is not a move I take lightly.
I have spend thousands of my own dollars that could have gone towards my family, my taxes, etc supporting John and his quest to expose the revisionist history which is corrupting the minds of our fellow New Zealanders, and to rally support for the cause of the establishment of One Law for all.
I even missed out on going to see my favorite band in the whole world, choosing to put those funds behind John Ansell.
I do not regret any of this.
I believe it was the right thing to do.
Nor do I reverse my position on the righteousness of the cause to establish Race-free government.
John has many character faults that make working with him difficult, yet I am dis-associating myself from him primarily because I find his attitude towards Muslims to be extremely bigoted…. John Ansell is an incurable Islamaphobe, and because his underlying Political philosophy is bereft of Principle,exposing much of his argument against Watangi apartheid as mere rhetoric.
I believe on these scores, he is not an asset to the cause of ‘One Law for all’, but a liability, and wonder if John would be so vocal against racist laws…in times and places where white folk like himself had the legal advantages?
I have no intention of doing dirty laundry in public, yet I find it essential that I publicly distance myself from him, and I cannot do so without a minimum of explanation.
Nor did I make this decision without having first trying to break through to my friend, by exposing the willful ignorance his xenophobia is founded upon, or the evils of his political philosophy… unchecked mandate of majority… which is purely arbitrary Law… purely Mob rule….. ie the delusions of absolute democracy.
This proves John is a Bigot… incapable of distinguishing peaceful and tolerant Muslims, from terrorist extremists.
He is beyond reason.
Out of reach.
Isis/ Daesh smiles.
Syrian children take shelter from Russian Bombs.
John is not moved at Innocent Syrian children washing up on the beaches of Europe… and that is not a person I wish to associate with or support.
He cannot protest my assertion because of his ‘Closed boarders’ attitude towards Muslim Refugees, and support for the Mad man Donald Trump.
One of the hardest things for Libertarians like myself to do is to give our support and political wisdom to single interest Lobby groups such as ‘One Law for all’, or ‘Ending cannabis prohibition’ type groups even though in principle we believe their causes to be just.
The reason being virtually all of them…. their motives are not pure… but absolutely self centered, causing them to reject the righteous Libertarian solutions to their problems.
This is because in *every other sphere of politics*, they side with tyranny… they desire the perpetuation of other injustices which would fall if they embraced *Principles*.
So for example this means the many activists against cannabis prohibition, are also activists for Tobacco prohibition and balk at constitutional restraints that though they would end cannabis prohibition, would also protect cigarette smokers from their bigotry.
Everyone wants freedom for themselves, but oppression for others they don’t like or fear.
They want free speech for themselves, yet Prohibitions on other opinions, etc.
John is like this.
As White victim of prejudice he wants liberation, yet on most other counts he loves tyranny, and actually works against me in my quest for *The Rule of Law* above arbitrary whim.
And so over the years I have noticed just how one-sided the relationship has been for me with just about every single issue lobby group I have tried to help.
While I am busy furnishing them with arms… they are busy marginalising my influence… virtually never giving me a help up when the media gives them opportunity… because deep down… they dont want my ideas to triumph.
This is most noticeable with Act party Supporters who love to claim they are classical liberals yet always take care never to promote Libertarians… they in reality prefer the company of socialists!
An example of this is Act man Garry Mallet’s new group running for Hamilton city council, claiming to represent many of the policies he knows I have tirelessly work for over the last 15 years… yet he has not called me to join him.
He probably thinks ‘I’m too radical. ‘Too unelectable’, etc… these are the sorts of excuses the compromisers love to salve their own consciences with when they know they are betraying the virtuous idealists who bravely proclaim their Libertarianism.
Even writing this ‘is evidence’ in their minds that Libertarians are incapable of diplomacy.
Most of these un-principled types have a common political hash-up which makes both left and right virtually indistinguishable at heart… they all claim to be Democrats that oppose constitution restraints on parliament. (for reasons enunciated above)
Years ago I wrote this in support of Frank Bainimarama… “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’ [as being synonymous with the rule of law] 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…”
The Rule of law is not getting a majority in parliament… which can be orchestrated by any popular phobia monger at election time, or crisis (like terrorism), but an Iron clad constitution which keeps parliament from arbitrarily passing laws that violate the rights of unpopular minorities, and enshrines other safeguards such as the right to free speech and to bear arms.
I know saying that last thing just spooked the sheeple who only see guns as tools for criminals… never as tools for Good people to defend themselves from criminals, and Evil governments.
And so here we are looking at the absolutely misguided faith in Government… the absolutely ridiculous desire to leave parliament free to enact any law whatsoever it can convince the country it has a mandate ‘from the people’.
This exposes us all to the whiles and evils of Party politics… Fashions… and the fears of the present moment.
And peoples lives get trodden underfoot every day.
John says “I like binding referenda… I believe in the wisdom of the crowd, as long as the crowd is INFORMED. So along with the referenda, you’d need to have higher standards of communication and debate”… which is convenient for his proposes being a member of the Majority race, and being a political conservative… with all the popular phobias and prejudices that go along with it.
Yet what if Maori were the greater number?
Would John accept his fate as a second class citizen simply because a Binding referenda mandated Treaty separatism? (which is basically what already have)
People like John. Like so many others are not *real* defenders of justice, but whiney bitches who dont like their own medicine.
They dont have the answers to the world political problems because deep down the dont love the principles of justice… just their own opinions.
Whereas Libertarians like myself will go out on a limb even for people who we believe hold very foolish and Bad Ideas… for the sake of Liberty and equality before the law.
I’m a Christian, not a Muslim. I think Islam is a dangerous false religion, yet I also know that it is possible to peacefully co-exist with Muslims who simply reciprocate the good will, and tolerance I seek to accord them.
This is where hope is found and the way forward for peace that Libertarianism holds forth, yet because Libertarianism threatens to destroy the powers and vested interests of the status quo the light of Libertarianism is marginalised and shaded by those who would rather the world burn… and children continue to be blown pieces than surrender any of their power and prejudice.
It was with sadness that have Facebook un-friended John, and blocked him for now, yet I sincerely hope that John grows and changes his mind, and that some day we can fight again together for a race free government in New Zealand.
I hope my words above do not provoke greater hardness of heart, but the reverse…. that if indeed there is still any reason left in him, that he may become conscious of his errors, and thereby be self-empowered to forsake them for the higher path.
Post Script: In Discussions of my post one atheist asserted:
” Johns question re Mohammed is correct and the one every Muslim should be fronted with.”
And because of the nature of this assertion, I believe it is worth me giving a reply….
“Simple minds will insist this valid.
Simple minds are what keep the wars of the world hot and fresh.
There are however some *principles* we can apply…. principles Atheists claim to be the champions of… yet by their deeds and follies they show they have no clue as to how to apply them.
The Chief one being that a free society *Separates Religion from the state*.
This being so if we desire to live in peace and freedom, we must form *a peace treaty* with those who believe different things to ourselves.
Thus the Libertarians social compact does not put *any conditions* other that the agreement to form a society of equal liberty and rights before the law.
This cuts off all the disagreement about other peoples perversions… as long as they consent to these minimum conditions. so opinions about Muhammad, Joshua, Jesus, Transubstantiation. Aliens, Gay sex, etc have no place in this discussion.
Once the compact is agreed upon, by all sides… this sets the terms and conditions for future peaceful dialogue, debate… all the while *having equality and freedom* protected. so that evenif agreement about such things as the goodness of Muhammad are never settled…. we still have peace, and liberty, and safeguards protecting *the unpopular* from the popular.
So Of course *I* being a christian reserve the right to critisisze Islam, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, etc… yet I don’t mix this into my political tenets…. *because I’m a real Libertarian*
And I First desire peaceful co-existence.
I reserve that for the sphere of religious liberty.
*Yet Fools like John Ansell* basically *impose* their religious opinions on everyone*
Do I make myself clear?
I find it necessary to add further comment directly to my post to address another important caveat.
I do not deny that many ideologies contain elements dangerous to Liberty, Justice, and Humanity.
I spend a lot of my life pointing out these evils and tendencies that corrode the mind.
So I do sympathise with John regarding his concerns about Islam.
Obviously from the actions of The Taliban, Isis, and other Islamic powers, there definitely are Muslims who are zealous of enshrining Brutal Islamic Theocracies, yet again those of us with a better understanding of History also know that at certain times Islamic States have been very tolerant and enlightened, more so that their Barbarous and backward western counterparts which usurped the name of Christendom.
I am a Protestant Christian, and interpret the Reformation as a great reforming process bringing Christianity back to it’s original Liberal and Non-official roots as a voluntary society of believers…. from the tyrannies of the Holy Roman Empire.
And it was a return to the Doctrines of Grace that Libertarianism was born.
I also think it pretty rich for John to point the finger at Islam when he himself is a Atheist.
I have my own view of Atheism as being very detrimental to the value of the human life, objective morality, and the fundamentals of Libertarianism… ie it’s corrosion of the Ideals of God given Inalienable rights and Equality of human Individuals.
Social Darwinism was the primary ideology behind the Nazi Holocaust and Eugenics program.
Yet I do not suggest these dangerous nihilisms make it impossible for Atheists to endorse a Libertarian social compact… though atheism tends towards the abandonment of moral principles in favour of pragmatic Utilitarianism/ Mob rule.
And this is similar the grave mistake people like John make when they Quote Theocratic verses from the Koran that sanction the killing of infidels, and imposition of sharia law.
They say this is black and white evidence that Muslims *cannot* endorse a Libertarian social compact/ or peacefully co-exist with Non-Muslims under a secular society which separates Religion from the Laws of the land.
Yet Reality itself refutes these assertions.
While I agree these assertions identify a definite tendency towards the undesirable, they are in no way an inevitable conclusion, as is empirically proven by the Millions of Muslims who live peacefully in western societies, many of whom love Freedom… understand what that means… because they fled Islamic States and Sharia Law because of experiencing it’s brutality first hand.
Again I point John and co towards the safeguards that every democracy needs to prevent sectarian dominance and violations of Liberty and Justice ie *A Libertarian constitution* that cannot be violated by shyster politicians who seek elections by promising vest interests to make their bigotries the law of the land.
The American constitution and it’s amendments were very close to this yet as Satan works, and fire his darts, and managed to tempt Americans to abandon the principles of the constitution… so too has tyranny, debt, and injustice taken root and multiplied.
As Generations have come and gone… the great truths that founded America have slowly been forsaken and abandoned so that only sheepish ignorance remains.
This is why there can be no compromise at any point of the principles of libertarianism… even in times of Crisis.
The price of Liberty is always, and for ever Eternal vigilance.
[WARNING: This blog post contains lots of very strong language and is practically guaranteed to give offence to weak-minded prudes. Please proceed at your own risk.]
The use–mention distinction is a foundational concept of (Western analytic) philosophy. To fail to recognise the distinction is, at best, to invite disaster.
The following true statements illustrate the distinction.
(1) Salt is an ionic compound, viz., sodium chloride (NaCl).
(2) ‘Salt’ is a four-letter word.
The first sentence is a statement about the substance called “salt”—it uses the word ‘salt’ to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word ‘salt’—it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.
‘Salt’ is a four-letter word. Salt is not a four-letter word. And neither salt nor ‘salt’ is a four-letter word in the usual idiomatic (and only incidentally numeric) sense of the term. It’s perfectly polite and indeed good table manners to ask someone please to the pass the salt!
In this post I want to say a few words about four-letter words (e.g., ‘fuck‘ and ‘shit‘) and their cognates (e.g. ‘fucking shit‘) and briefly discuss whether (and in what contexts) Christians ought or ought not to be using such vulgarities and profanities.
And it struck me that the perfect way to make the main point I want to make is to recycle the metaphor that Jesus uses in Matthew 5:13 right after the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says to his followers
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (NIV)
George Carlin aptly refers to the words I’m talking about as “just words which we’ve decided not to use all the time.” And “that’s about the only thing you can say about them for sure.” Carlin’s bang on the money! Because, if we used the words all the time, they’d lose their “saltiness”! They’d no longer be effective cuss words and they’d no longer be good for anything more than just plain old communication. Which would be a dingleberry of a disappointment.
(Or would it? If we no longer had an inventory of “reserved” words with which to insult others effectively, we’d have to relearn the art of the insult. And our prose would begin to be colourful like Bill Shakespeare‘s or Martin Luther‘s prose is colourful. And actually that would be fucking awesome!)
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is probably the one blog post of mine I regularly link to. It explains how (according to me, but I’m not wrong) words acquire their meanings. The meaning of a word (any word) is determined by the conventions that govern its use. And those conventions can and do vary between different communities of language users. Amongst the kind of people I usually hang out with, the words ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ are used fairly indiscriminately. They’ve pretty much lost their saltiness in those contexts. (But I use those words extremely judiciously, if at all, if I’m having dinner with, say, my mum or any of her older friends.) Whereas both I and my peers still tend to hold back on using the terms ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’. Those two words remain mostly reserved for when we need convenient terms to refer to truly despicable people, such as Peter Dunne.
But here’s the interesting thing. In the circles in which I usually move, the words ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’ can cease to be insults at all simply by prefixing them with the words ‘good’ and ‘formidable’ respectively. To call someone a good cunt is to pay them a genuine compliment. And it is a mark of utmost respect to call someone a formidable motherfucker. Mohammed Ali was a formidable motherfucker. Vladimir Putin is a formidable motherfucker. Good or evil, you don’t want to cross such people! Not unless it’s from a safe distance, anyway. (I.e., well outside of Russia in the latter case.)
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (ESV)
Here’s a picture taken Wednesday evening of me (on the right) and a couple of good cunts. 🙂 🙂
Now to the question, ought Christians to be using the sort of language I’ve been using here? The answer is simple common sense, really. It depends on the context and the occasion and the company. None of the cuss words above is at all appropriate during a church service, for example. (But you may say “piss” if you’re reading from the KJV.) Such terms should be used sparingly, if at all, in polite company. Because they’re impolite. But in impolite company (such as on my Facebook page) they’re not impolite. Here’s what the Apostle Paul says
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. (NIV)
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV)
It’s contextual, you see. Don’t go calling someone a good cunt if it’s “out of place” to do so. But do go calling them that if it’s “helpful for building them up according to their needs.”
I’ll finish by noting that there’s a big tension between being a good cunt and being a formidable motherfucker. If you succeed at being both simultaneously then you’re practically a saint.
The late, Great Christian President of The USA. Republican Ronald Reagan.
If you are a freedom lover, If you are A Christian, yet have never herd his famous ‘Tear Down This Wall’…. you are ripping yourself off!
Sit here now and listen for less than 30 minutes …. You are in for a rousing treat!
Ronald Reagan surely must rank as America’s greatest Orator of modern times… and undoubtible one of the greatest presidents of American History.
Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.
We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]
Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same–still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.
President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.
In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State–as you’ve been told–George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”
In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: “The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world.” A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium–virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.
In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty–that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.
Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany–busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city’s culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there’s abundance–food, clothing, automobiles–the wonderful goods of the Ku’damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn’t count on–Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]
In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent– and I pledge to you my country’s efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.
Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days–days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city–and the Soviets later walked away from the table.
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then– I invite those who protest today–to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.
While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative–research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.
In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place–a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.
In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.
Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.
And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.
To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.
With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation.
There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I’m certain, will do the same. And it’s my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.
One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea–South Korea–has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You’ve done so in spite of threats–the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there’s a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there’s something deeper, something that involves Berlin’s whole look and feel and way of life–not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love–love both profound and abiding.
Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.
As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.
And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.
Just love it when after the Evolutionists wax lyrical about ‘Their discovery’ of a Cataclysmic Flood … merely thousands of years ago that Joe blerts out that their assertion that Mankind came from a Shrew was way harder to accept than their assertions about the mega Flood!
They of course claim their dating of the flood @ 10 000 years ago is ‘solid’, and dont fail to say that Cataclysms (like the supposed Comet that wiped out the Dinosaurs) are the impetus of Evolution!
Pause and contemplate just how absurd that idea is… Disasters foster evolution!
I will expand on this as time permits, yet I will simply say that This ‘new evidence’ of the Flood, like so many facts that I have gleaned is not the biased opinions of vested interests trying to validate the Bible, but comes from those who claim the bible is a myth!
As much as 90% of the supporting evidence I have found comes from such sources.
You just have to recognise the implications of what is being presented, and have the nouse not to be deluded by their Qwazi-excuses and personal bais that they try and foist upon the hard data.
Not only does this take away any infidels ability to claim the facts are subjective fabrications… it also just goes to show how incredulous the Atheists are themselves… that they can stare straight at the evidence that proves the bible is true… yet miss the boat completely.
They have blinders on…. Satan Laughing, spreads his wings.
The Truth is that with the process of time, and the progress of science more of What we Christians believed by Faith becomes grounded in Scientific fact, and with the advance of Biblical theism… it is atheism that is in Retreat!
Atheism exists in an ever decreasing ‘Gap’ in Human knowledge.
Hang your heads in shame all you liberal Theologians who have abandoned faith in the scriptures in favour of Infidel philosophies.
Nor should we just focus on the Judgement of God upon the wickedness of Humanity, for the Story of Noah is not just about destruction, but also about Salvation, the Arc being a type of Christ and the new life of the redeemed.
1611 King James Bible believing Christian Dispensationalist.