Communion. Christian Libertarians / Eternal Vigilance bloggers Reed, Richard, and Twikiriwhi. Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel. Auckland. 6-10-12.
It was great to meet you Reed, and to catch up again with you Richard.
HAHAHA! Check out our Halo’s!
“…And there appeared on their heads Cloven tounges… as of Fire…”
(Acts2vs3) 🙂
“Evil Prevails when Good Men do nothing”
Gadfly Convention.
This Saturday.
BE THERE!
Come Listen to Cannabis Revolutionary Dakta Green!
In the history of courageous activism against Tyranny and Evil, the story of the White Rose Resistance to Nazism is truly Awesome!
Brave Young Souls whom were Murdered by The Nazi state for their Defiance of Hitler’s Infernal Rule.
For an excellent Personal account of the Lives of Hans and Sophie Scholl, and their Enlightened and Freedom loving Parents… Read Anton Gill’s account Here:
The following are Excerpts From Wikipedia…
Origin:…In 1941 Hans Scholl read a copy of a sermon by an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, Bishop August von Galen, decrying the euthanasia policies (extended that same year to the concentration camps)[2] which the Nazis maintained would protect the German gene pool.[3] Horrified by the Nazi policies, Sophie obtained permission to reprint the sermon and distribute it at the University of Munich as the group’s first leaflet prior to their formal organization…
Hans and Sophie Scholl.
“ Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day? ”
— From the first leaflet of the White Rose
“ Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals … Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! ”
— From the second leaflet of the White Rose
On 18 February 1943, coincidentally the same day that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels called on the German people to embrace total war in his Sportpalast speech, the Scholls brought a suitcase full of leaflets to the university. They hurriedly dropped stacks of copies in the empty corridors for students to find when they flooded out of lecture rooms. Leaving before the class break, the Scholls noticed that some copies remained in the suitcase and decided it would be a pity not to distribute them. They returned to the atrium and climbed the staircase to the top floor, and Sophie flung the last remaining leaflets into the air. This spontaneous action was observed by the custodian Jakob Schmid. The police were called and Hans and Sophie Scholl were taken into Gestapo custody. Sophie and Hans were interrogated by Gestapo interrogator Robert Mohr, who initially thought Sophie was innocent. However, after Hans confessed, Sophie assumed full responsibility in an attempt to protect other members of the White Rose. Despite this, the other active members were soon arrested, and the group and everyone associated with them were brought in for interrogation.
The Scholls and Probst were the first to stand trial before the Volksgerichtshof—the People’s Court that tried political offenses against the Nazi German state—on 22 February 1943. They were found guilty of treason and Roland Freisler, head judge of the court, sentenced them to death. The three were executed the same day by guillotine at Stadelheim Prison. All three were noted for the courage with which they faced their deaths, particularly Sophie, who remained firm despite intense interrogation (however, reports that she arrived at the trial with a broken leg from torture are false). She said to Freisler during the trial, “You know as well as we do that the war is lost. Why are you so cowardly that you won’t admit it?”
When Hans was executed, he said “Let freedom live” as the blade fell.
“…On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology…”
Haha I don’t put too much weight on these sorts of ‘Findings’.
I certainly don’t believe Woman empathise more than Men, or that Libertarians Empathise less than socialists. I think this conclusion shows a failure to appreciate the Christian Libertarian belief that Liberty and self reliance tends to greater prosperity for everyone, and thus less poverty, and a greater voluntary spirit of community, and benevolence…. all things which socialism destroys. Thus Liberty fosters a more Christian spirit. Yet of course the Objectivists have done their best to destroy this understanding of Freedom and empathy, and instead promoted Selfishness… thus again they have done their best to undermine the Libertarian cause…
As for the IQ Part… well I don’t put much weight on thoses things either as there have been plenty of high IQ Morons!
Apparently plenty of Hi IQ folk believe the theory of Evolution!
So that proves IQ is no Guarantee of intelligence/ wisdom!
Yet I do Believe Socialists are stupid!
That is an empirical Fact!
Ha!
(I guess I stand convicted of Lack of Tact! Yet I dont believe Being PC shows empathy either… really it’s cloaked Malice)
Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.
I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..
Read what ‘Cornell’ has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo….
Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.
Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.
Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.
Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.
Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.
This guy is making a Fatal mistake!
Real Christians do not claim to be good.
The Bible tells us There is none that are Good… no not one.
All fall short of the Glory of God.
Christ came to redeem *sinners*.
What we are seeing in this Photo is an arrogant refusal to admit moral guilt, and because a person must freely choose to receive the Gift of Salvation it is essential that a person first realises they are *not Good*, and that they are Guilty before God.
The self righteous don’t believe they need Salvation…
this guy obviously thinks he’s Good… That’s vanity! That’s self delusion…
That’s his biggest mistake!
It may be true to say that in practical terms he is comparitivly Good/ no worse morally speaking…than the ‘average Christian’. Indeed He may even surpass the moral integrity of the average Christian… never Stealing, he may not tell horrendous lies, He may not be violent, He may be a faithful husband, and care for the oppressed and infirm, etc…yet it is a mistake to think that a Christian is getting into Heaven on his own merits, and that all that is necessary is to be more virtuous than the average Christian… and God will have to let you into heaven.
It does not work like that.
The Moral standard of goodness and acceptiblity unto God is not set by the behavior of the average Christian. It is set by the Holy character of God Almighty… and that is 100% sinlessness.
And No Son of Fallen Adam has ever lived a perfectly holy life.
We are all guilty before God and will be judged for our sins, unless we accept God’s means of Salvation for sinners… Christ’s death on the Cross… as a substitutional sacrifice… payment in full for our Sins.
Now many people will Recoil from this.
Some vain, Egotistical, and self-righteous folk will not believe their sinfulness is serious enough to warrant such an extreme punishment… such an excruciating death as their means of salvation… they will not believe their ‘insignificant indiscretions’ made it necessary for Christ to be crucified on their account.
Others will look at the grotesqueness of the cross and say that
It is offensive to contemplate such a barbaric thing could be the means a good God would utilize for his purposes.
Both these views fail to apprehend that it is God’s sovereign right to set the terms and conditions for salvation, and that one of the reasons he chose this means was not only to demonstrate how seriously he condems all sin, but also so that no one could boast.
To receive Christ is a humbling thing to do.
There is no place for vanity, or Ego… We must accept Salvation on God’s terms and conditions… not ours…and for this reason alone Christ is despised by many.
Yet In the great day of Judgment for sin, Perhapse the greatest sorrow of the Damned of our age will be the realizations that God loved them… that he did everything short of negating their volition to redeem them… and that he made the truth available to the utmost parts of the earth that salvation was Free… yet they were blinded by their own Pride and lusts. They will know utterly that they rejected Christ, and as a consequence have actually Damned themselves!
God is not willing that any should perrish.
So Dear Reader, I hope you have contemplated your own moral condition, and used the correct yardstick in your measurements… 100% holiness… not as this poor Sod has done. I hope you realize your own Moral culpability, and from this realize why Christ died on the cross… Because Hell is for Self-righteous fools… and Contrary to Human Rationalism… Heaven is for sinners whom have humbled themselves enough to call upon the name of the Lord.
Christianity is the only religion where the prerequisite for admission is the unworthiness of the applicant.
Ye Sinners…Heed The Gospel of St Paul!…
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Rom3vs10
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Rom3vs23
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom5vs8
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom6vs23
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom10vs13
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1Cor1vs18
St Paul. The Apostle of the Gospel of Grace and the Teacher of us Gentiles.
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” 1Tim1vs15,16
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Sinner, Libertarian Christian, 1611 King James Bible Believer, Dispensationalist.
The relationship between public property, government and the public is the same as the relationships of a trust.
The public are the beneficiaries and the government officials should act as trustees by managing the public assets according to the interests of the public.
The rights and wrongs of government property management are similar to the rights and wrongs of personal property management. In the case of property management the mandate of the majority is as legitimate as the will of an individual property owner.
This means that it is not wrong for government officials to manage fishing quotas, forests, Boobs on Bikes, littering and much more.
Freedom is not an overriding principle.
The question I ask myself to work out my legislative political views is this…
In this situation is it right for me (or some other person) to use force against a neighbour?
If my answer is “yes” then I support legislative force and government interference in the situation.
If my answer is “no” then I oppose legislative force and government interference in the situation.
I have noticed that sometimes other people will think it is not right for them to use force in a situation but that it is right for government to use force in that same situation. Why do they have a discrepancy? Why would someone think it is right for government to do something that would be wrong for them to do by themselves? They must think that government is special. They must think that government is above their own moral limitations.
An attempt to explain this discrepancy was made to me in a recent discussion. The explanation given was that the government (in this case the court system) is like a father settling disputes amongst its children.
I think viewing government as a father is idolatry.
Questions for the readers…
Do you believe there are situations where it would be wrong for an individual to use force but right for government?
If so, how do you explain the discrepancy?
