Category Archives: Francis Schaeffer

The Sophistry of Ayn Rand. Selfishness. A conversation with Prodos Marinakis

Ayn Rand’s ‘The Virtue of selfishness’.

It is my opinion that while she is correct about the Ideals of Capitalism and Freedom, Ayn Rand’s philosophy ‘Objectivism’ takes individualism to perverse extremes and in so doing has committed great disservice to the Libertarian cause.
She was a Megalomaniac says the late Nathaniel Branden, and by my reckoning… a Narcissist… and her cult attracts a high percentage of Disciples with similar Sociopathic tendencies.

Unfortunately The reputation of Objectivism has become entangled with that of the Libertarian movement.
Having usurped a position of authority in the Libertarian movement Objectivist teachings and character have caused the Libertarian movement to stink… All the High Ideals of Libertarianism have been sullied because of the delusion that Libertarians are selfish and dont give a toss about the poor, and as long as this is how the Voting Public veiws Libertarianism… There will never be a Libertarian Government elected into office.
Objectivists tend to drive out other types of Libertarians as it takes a very thick skin to bear their Obsessive derision of Religion and glorification of egotistical arrogance.

The accusation that ‘Libertarians are selfish bastards who dont give a shit about the poor’ is a characteristic easily assumed by Socialists and others who have the unpleasant misfortune of talking with an arrogant Randiod Egoist.
Though it is a terrible accusation… this sort of Critisism is often received by an Objectivist as a badge of Honour to be worn with pride! They think concern for others is a vice.
They assume they are imitating their Glorious master who teaches them to be absolutely impervious to the opinions of others.
Central to her Philosophy is also Militant Atheism…’Religion is the root of all evil’ type mentality that is not only overt, but also needs to be appreciated to understand that her Individualism is underpinned (and distorted) because of her Atheism.

Ironically I was prompted to write this blogpost critisising Rands contention that ‘selfishness is a virtue’ after having a Facebook conversation with an Objectivist who shares few (if any) of these common Objectivist traits, and is prepared to Diverge from Rand’s Rabid Anti-theism… Australia’s Colourful champion of Liberty… Prodos Marinakis.
From his comment below you can see for yourself he is willing to be honest and critical about the Objectivist movement.
He’s a very likable Guy.

Prodos Facebook

As Facebook friends I saw one of his posts on ‘The political Compass’ which is a better ‘graph’ on which to plot peoples Political persuasions rather than the ridiculously simplistic Far Left to Far Right Linear graph that is adored by the Mainstream who only seek to maintain the two party system.
These ‘Left and Right’ parties dont like the ‘political compass’ because it outs them as anti-freedom Authoritarians.

Having answered a questionnaire to ascertain his political leanings… the result was plotted on the compass. Below is Prodos result…. and I’ll let our conversation carry on from here… yet for the record I myself am a Bible believing Christian and an Independent Libertarian activist.

…Prodos Marinakis

Political Compass Test — just for fun.
Mine is below. Similar score to Milton Friedman.

More “conservative” than “libertarian”.

Tim Wikiriwhi:
I’m not surprised by your result Prodos given how highly you regard Rand.
I think she distorts peoples views about the virtue of Charity and the vise of selfishness, whereas I highly Regard Jesus Christ and St Paul… and it will be no surprise to you that I usually register as a left leaning Libertarian.

And yet now having completed this test (above) I too have come out a Right leaning Libertarian … making a mockery of my earlier comment… ūüôā

In fact We virtually got the same coordinates…[ Both Libertarians rather than Authoritarians …I was slightly to the left of Prodos… yet still on the right side of the spectrum]

Like me you were probably uncomfortable with the Direction of some of the questions and were forced to make some choices without the opportunity to explain your reasoning…

Prodos Marinakis:
Tim, thanks for sharing your Political Compass results & for your comments — both before and after doing the “Political Compass” test.
I’m very glad to see that we got such similar results. You are more surprised by that than I am, since I believe I understand you, better than you understand me.
You wrote, regarding Ayn Rand:
“I think she distorts peoples views about the virtue of Charity and the (vice) of selfishness …”
Well, to talk about Ayn Rand (or Jesus) and not get bogged down, it helps to have specific quotes and to also put them into the proper context. True?
Personally, I consider Charity to be a virtue — provided it’s not tainted by the Kantian notion of altruism (which, despite the modern Church’s reliance on this evil concept, is in fact a post-Christian and anti-Christian invention of Auguste Comte from the 1830’s).
As for “selfishness” as a motive … that term, in Ethics, usually refers to a bad motive.
Calling someone “selfish” usually means that they’re benefiting themselves — even when it’s at the expense of others. And they’re benefiting themselves in a way that’s indifferent to other people.
Yet, there is nothing in Ayn Rand’s fiction or non-fiction that advocates or esteems THAT kind of “selfishness”.
On the contrary, being “selfish” in the Ayn Rand sense — as she explained in The Virtue of Selfishness and encapsulated in her saying: “There are no conflicts of interests among rational men”.
Not to mention the whole model of Free Market Capitalism.
It is true, however, that Objectivism tends to underrate the value and virtue of Charity.
When a writer uses a word (or an expression) it’s important to understand what THE WRITER meant by that word (or expression).
When Jesus says “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” … we need to study what Jesus meant.
For instance he didn’t mean (as one of my colleagues recently argued) that Jesus is a supporter of taxation and “Big Government”.
(better leave it there for now as I have to cook dinner!)

Tim Wikiriwhi:
Prodos, I think you have a better grasp than the average Objecitivist because you differ from the average in two aspects.
1. You dont have an innate hatred of religion and so you dont ‘need’ to ‘prove’ it is ‘Evil’… and that gives you a far more objective view when discussing such matters, and (2) this is a corollary (or complimentary) of the fact that you are not afraid to diverge from the Orthodox dogma of the Cult.
Now One of the reasons I accuse Rand of Sophistry is because she trains her disciples to Bastardise the English language by arrogantly abandoning accepted meaning of terms… Re-defining words to mean something other than what they have been historically understood to mean and then proceeds to pretend she can prove the whole world was wrong … *and that she is some sort of Mega-genius* when in fact she is a fraud who has literally re-written the rules.
…often giving terms the very opposite meaning… and most importantly… she has ‘Pre-loaded’ the new meanings so that they will now appear to mathematically add up to the conclusion she wants to achieve… eg ‘that selfishness is now ‘a virtue’…. Objectivists dont even speak the same language… they are disconnected from the historical dialogue and dont even realise they have been swindled… mainly because they share Rands hatred of Christianity and are consumed by their own Egos… and think they too are super geniuses… ‘John Galts’ far above the average savage…. This is not the mentality of ‘Objectivity’… but a type of psychosis that blinds the mind of those who are not aware of what game she is playing.
Now though I know what her nefarious motives were… to discredit Charity… esp religious charity … therefore casting a devious lie to destroy faith in the goodness of Christ and the Christian faith… I can entertain her ‘Revisions’ and understand her silly definitions of ‘Rational selfishness’ vs ‘Irrational selfishness’ …(obviously by her reckoning the historical meaning of selfishness *was this irrational selfishness* and nothing more… not independence… not self-reliance… not self responsibility… and certainly not slavery to the collective!), yet her distortions of Egoism and selfishness, and twisted ideas about altruism as a form of slavery rather than voluntary Individual virtue of charity have contorted the average Objectivists views on Capitalism and Voluntary community Action.
Objectivists are always praising Blatant *Greed*… Rand has crippled their minds so that they are incapable of forming moral arguments that condemn Largess by CEOs at the expense of the well being of the average worker … because the average Objectivist cant understand that simply because a person may have the liberty to act a certain way… that this does not of necessity make it Just, or wise, or of Good character.
Likewise Objectivists tend excuse themselves from supporting worthy voluntary associations and community activities under the pretense that to ‘feel obliged’ to contribute is some sort of ‘psychological slavery’…. yet if any free society is to function it will rely Heavily on exactly these sorts of virtues and voluntarily self imposed moral duty’s.

These are my thoughts on why I suggested that On the Libertarian spectrum I would expect myself to be to the Left of you (Prodos), though I appreciate you are not ‘the average Objectivist’…. yet still your thinking will be ‘coloured’ to some degree by Rands Bents.
I have seen many of your posts that I have enjoyed very much in particular many that could not have been written by the’average Objectivist’ because they are Antireligious-lite… even commending… and that is not a common trait in the Cult.”

That is where I’ll finish this dialogue with Prodos.

I think think he is is a very interesting, and intelligent Man… a Champion of Liberty… a Man of Reason… who in my opinion avoids sycophantic Rand worship.
Someone a Christian can have a meaningful discussion with… free of petty conceit.

Despite the fact that Long Blog posts are unpopular, I do need to make one further clarification, and that is to say that though Christianity regards Charity as one of the highest virtues, and that People tend to associate this as a mentality common among left leaning political supporters, that it is a grievous error to automatically assume this means Christians ought to be socialists!
The notion that Christ was a socialist has been around for a long time, yet was systematically propagated and grew predominant among Western Christians in the 20th century when Communists infiltrated the churches and began to systematically sway Christians into supporting socialism… despite their Nations Prosperity,Freedom and capitalism being founded upon Christian protestant political reforms and values of Individual Rights, Private property, Hard work, Thrift, Voluntary charity, Honest Free-trade, etc.

This is quite a complex conundrum to untangle, yet when properly understood the confusion and false teaching gives way to definite clarity and broad understanding.
The Key is to understand the dispensational scheme of the scriptures and how things fit in properly with the plan of God.

Reading the Bible there are verses in the Gospels, and early Acts that appear to the unlearned to support the idea that Jesus was anti-wealth and promoted ‘Communism’… yet such an interpretation fails to take into account what Jesus was offering the Jews at the time, and that these instances… such as when he told the Rich young man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor… and follow him… are not representative of the future Kingdom Christ had come to establish but was a special time of transition … from the Kingdom of Mammon… into the Messianic Kingdom of God on Earth whereby these injunctions were tests of worthiness to enter his kingdom… repentance for rebellion and sin… and a willingness to forsake the gains achieved under Mammon.. wealth… power… social status… and to enter the kingdom ‘Naked’… fully trusting that Christ would reward them when he had overthrown the Romans and established his rule in Jerusalem.
And here is the real Jam: Christs Kingdom will not be a Communist Utopia!
There will be private property!
The Lazy will not reap the harvests of the Virtuous and hard working, etc!
So the Important thing to appreciate about Christs Message to the Jews at that time and his injunctions to Sell their possessions, and have all things common, and to Turn the other cheek, and to endure persecution unto the end were not instructive of how his Kingdom would function… but tests of Faith and repentance… ie to be found worthy to enter his Kingdom The Jews had to have faith Plus works!
When this is understood the claim that Jesus promoted Socialism collapses… and is exposed as a wicked false doctrine used to deceive Christians for Evil political ends.
Sadly this False doctrine has been very successful with millions of Deceived Christians voting for Big Government Nanny State socialist Tyranny instead of for Liberty and self responsibility guided by personal ethics.
How Ironic that these Christians fail to see they are unwitting supporting Leviathan… enthroning the all powerful State as God… Mammon!

As this Blog post is already too long I will simply ad links to some of my other Blogposts that go into more detail about Christs Kingdom ministry to the Jews… and how that differs from the Christian Age of Grace that we live in today… which is a different dispensation, and has a different gospel..


The Ideals of Freedom and Individual rights was born of Protestantism!

I will add a link here to show that true Christian Charity is vastly different from the Atheist pseudo-morality of Socialist Tyranny and the forced redistribution of Wealth via welfare…


And finally below is a Link to a speech I delivered in 2006, at the Tenth anniversary of the now disbanded New Zealand Libertarian party… ‘The Libertarianz’ in which I tried to expound why I thought Rabid Objectivism needed to take a back seat to a more Humane and tolerant activism if the party was to have any hope of success at the polls… as can be seen from the date posted to the blog was in 2012… and I was still very angry about what had happened to the Libertarianz party… I was of the opinion that Objectivism was/ had suffocated the party.
I saw the party as becoming little more than a propaganda machine to further the Atheist Cult of Rand… I had already walked away from it by then.
Fanatical Objectivists have convinced themselves that by coining the phrase ‘Egoism’ that they can escape the the accusations of Egotism! another example of Rand’s Sophistry are work!
Egoism… self worship…they say is the highest Individual character trait!


New Zealand still needs a Libertarian Political Choice… yet if this is ever to rise again lessons need to be learned from the Objectivist Dominated Libertarianz party.
If a New Libertarian party is to rise it cannot become a recruitment tool for the Cult of Objectivism… Rands Philosophy cannot be adopted as the last word on Party Policy… and certainly Objectivist Intolerance towards religious views or Charity… cannot be allowed to set the tone of Party Literature and conduct.
A far more Libertarian and enlightened Character and charter needs to be set and presented to the voting public…one in which Libertarianism is expounded that shows Liberty is far more compassionate and Humane than Socialism ever was… and when you Look a a guy like Prodos Marinakis and his moderated style of Objectivism compared to the Rabid Rand worshiping Egoist and Millitant Atheists… the contrast is stark.
Its the difference between an enlightened and Tolerant, and thinking Libertarian… from an indoctrinated Fanatical Zealot of a God hating Cult of selfish arseholes!

This Caricature of Rand and Objectivism may be an exaggeration yet it is not wholly Unjustified as anyone who has had anything to do with the Objectivist movement will tell you… and you can read about just how delusional Rand was in person by one of her closest and most dedicated disciples… Nathaniel Branden… Read “My Years with Ayn Rand”.
When Judgement day comes for Any Rand she will be exposed as a fraud… In Reality she was not Great at all but a Delusional Woman full of the worst Character traits… and her toxic beliefs bring out the worst in those that are deceived by her.

Fortunately there are some New Zealand Objectivists and Libertarians who share the same virtues as Prodos… those that are prepared to think for themselves more and quote Rand less.
Any New party would need to maintain a separation of the Church of Ayn Rand and State… as much as a separation of any other personal ideology.
This is where hope lies and could be the basis for Cooperation between Libertarians of all persuasions.
Getting things all in their correct context and this way Libertarianism will have a much broader appeal… including winning Christians and others out of Socialism and into supporting Freedom where they ought to be. This will only happen when Egoism, and Atheism, and Selfishness are not the defining traits of the Libertarian party… But Enlightened tolerance and adherence to just principles, equality before the Law, and a desire to downsize Government and abolish unjust tyrannical laws and taxes… “He who governs best… governs least”. Thomas Jefferson.
Maybe sometime soon Kiwi Libertarians can have a Reunion… a few Beers… and talk about what could be… what should be in the near future.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.



More from Tim…





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

^ 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‚Ķ Jews, Hindus‚Ķ and tragically‚Ķ 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‚Ķ 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 ‚Äėessential balance‚Äô 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‚Ķ and furthermore by looking not only at the truthfulness of contentious issues, but just as essentially *at the heart motive* of both ourselves‚Ķ 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‚Ķ 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‚Ķ the bible says ‚Äúthe heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.‚ÄĚ, and again ‚ÄúThat this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world but that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.‚ÄĚ
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?


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‚Ķ. And these are ‚ÄėChristian humanitarian values towards the lost‚Äô 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 ‚Äėin house‚Äô pep talks to the troops that may be spoken in strong terms to emphasize the gravity of what is at stake‚Ķ 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 ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ
Bf That kind of shit will plug up your pipes in the worst way.
Like ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ
J M Throw the Bible in there as well to make it even better.
Like ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ

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 ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ

I receive a typical response …. And my answer follows
B R said‚Ķ. ‚Äú 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.‚ÄĚ
Like ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ 2 hrs
My Reply‚Ķ. ‚ÄúB 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‚Ķ. Worse absolute hatred towards billions of human beings.
Like ‚ÄĘ Reply ‚ÄĘ 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‚Äôm practicing ‚Äėhate speech‚Äô against them‚Ķ that I‚Äôm not being PC enough towards them ‚Ķ that by my hardness I am not demonstrating ‚Äėlove‚Äô towards them, and so failing on every level to reach *Their hearts and minds*‚Ķ. Yet even if this were true‚Ķ 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 ‚ÄėPolitically Correctness‚Äô.
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‚Ķ in fact as a Westy Bogan I simply cant function at that ‚ÄėIvory tower level‚Äô‚Ķ nor do I seek to be a part of that ‚Äėelevated‚Äô 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‚Ķ 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?

‚ÄúOne Day‚ÄĚ. 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.

Ayn Rand Didn’t Understand Capitalism. Or Altruism. Or Christianity. Or Reality. JOE CARTER. Acton Institute Powerblog

rand self

There once was a time when I was enamored by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. An émigré from the Soviet Union, the influential novelist and founder of Objectivism had an enthusiasm for market capitalism and a hatred of communism that I found entrancing. I discovered her two major philosophical novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in my early years in college as I was beginning to wake from my enchantment with liberalism. I was instantly hooked.

Rand‚Äôs ideas were intriguing, yet she harbored sentiments that made it difficult for a young Christian to accept. She was an atheist who despised altruism and preached the ‚Äúvirtue of selfishness.‚ÄĚ She believed that rational self-interest was the greatest good and sang the praises of egoism.

In retrospect, it appears obvious that any attempt to reconcile these ideas with my orthodox evangelicalism was destined to fail. Still, I thought there might be something to the philosophy and was particularly intrigued by her defense of capitalism. My understanding of our economic system was a rather immature, though, and I failed to recognize that Rand had an almost complete misunderstanding of capitalism. She confused self-interest with selfishness.
Read more >>>Here<<< Read More of my criticisms of Objectivism below... We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.

Higher Values than Wealth or Self Interest

Classic Libertarian Idealism Cares (Objectivism is as silly as Socialism)

Christ-likeness…Heroic Self-sacrifice… John Shear throws himself in front of a horse to save little girl. (Ayn Rand’s Objectivism blows!)

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

Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.

God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)

The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism.

Thorns in the Flesh.

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

Atheism has no basis for Rights… or Morals.

Spiritual Warfare. The Great Controversy.

evo christ war

This is an old and valid….(though a tad simplistic I admit) Christian argument which is simply showing that the Modern regression in morality is founded upon both the acceptance of Atheist evolution and the rejection of Bible based theistic Christianity.
I say it is simplistic because some of this ‘liberalism’ has in fact been real progress because it has removed bad Laws… and as such should in fact be supported by Christians… like the End of Prohibitions on Homosexuality, etc…)
Many Christians have been taught by ignorant and bigoted preachers that such reforms are evil…. when infact Christianity proper is not about oppressing sinners and infidels. That has historically been a great evil which resulted from the merging of Church and state…. Constantine…. etc… which was a deviation from what Christianity truly is… a voluntary association… not A political lobby for Power.

This is not to say that Christians ought not to participate in the democratic process, but that they must take care to be on the side of Liberty and justice… not tyranny and oppression.
They must seek to be ‘the salt of the earth’ not by despotic Laws…. but by Example and preaching Christian values and inspiring voluntary endorsement of their beliefs.

This picture also attempts to show Christians why they must be prepared to directly confront the False religion/ pseudo science of Evolution…. because it is the foundation of so many lies and Great evils.
It was when I realised that Evolution was Bogus, that I became much more open to the truth of the Bible…. because The idea of God crating Mankind began to make much more sense.

Read more…

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

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

Poster child for Atheism…Hannibal Lecter.

Many Modern Atheists are Pompous White horse Riding ‘Moralists’!
They are Religious Zealot’s on a Righteous Crusade, fighting the ‘Evils’ of Religion, and vigously propagating and defending their Faith.
They often get extremely vicious against declarations of Faith in the Christian God, which led one Blogger to inquire…

” I mean, if you truly believe there is no God, why get all worked up over what a bunch of delusional Christians think?”… Valley Girl Appologist.

Pondering upon a post on Richard Goode’s Face book page discussing this Atheist Mentality in respect to why many of them are so militantly Anti-Christ, and so strongly desire to deny God’s existence… I made the following comment…
“There is a psychological reason Richard, They Hide from God in the Dark so as to delude themselves they can do as they please, and yet Pesky Christians keep reminding them that there is a God, and that He sets the Moral Laws… not them, and that one day they will stand before him and answer for their sins. *This is a message they HATE* … to the very pit of their self deluded souls! They simply don‚Äôt want to know about God *End of story*

Which Solicited the following response from ‘Atheist Greg’
……… “GARBAGE!”

^^^ Now Greg has expressed an opinion, not a counter argument.
It is no doubt a very common ‘opinion’ among Atheists, yet I don‚Äôt think my position as stated above can be so easily dismissed.
Atheist Greg has actually provided me with further opportunity to discourse the arguments for the Theistic vindication for Objective Morality vs Atheist Nihilism, and the origin of Mans innate sense of Good and evil.
Here I employ the basic argument used by the Late great C S Lewis.


My Reply…

If You Greg, and your kin, are nothing more than ‘Space Algae’, well *then* my arguement would be ‘Garbage’, yet you are a Conscious Moral being with a sence of Good and Evil, and you appeal to the ‘Moral law’ governing human actions every day… eg when you get a bill in the mail which overcharges you, you immediately feel a pang of ‚Äėinjustice‚Äô‚Ķ and experience emotions of sorrow, and anger‚Ķ. And begin to make self righteous determinations to see justice is restored. Now this sense of injustice at ‘wrong’ is more than simply being upset that an agreement was broken (social compact)‚Ķie that a mere human convention was violated, It is a sense that *A Real Moral absolute‚Ķ binding on all humanity has been broken* and that you are within your right to seek justice for your injury.
You are in fact appealing to an objective Moral absolute… a ‘higher Law’ which you implicitly believe underpins all ‘conventional’ human agreements as moral duties/ obligations to fulfil.

Thus I say that You Greg do not/ cannot live as a human being consistently with your claim that the universe is nihilistic/ A moral, or that Mankind is merely ‚ÄėSpace Algae‚Äô.
To do so you would have to loose all sense of moral duty. You would have say to yourself that a person steeling your car‚Ķ was not doing anything wrong‚Ķ that even saying the car is ‚Äėmine‚Äô is a moral irrelevance‚Ķ the universe caring nothing for your claims to ownership.
And you certainly have no basis to think that when a school bus full of children plunges over a cliff that any ‚Äėcosmic injustice‚Äô has occurred‚Ķ no basis to shake your fist at heaven‚Ķ the only reason you would do that is if deep within you believe in Moral absolutes, and know that Children *don‚Äôt deserve* to die, and that you are angry at God for allowing this sort of thing to happen.


The people who come the closest to the embodiment of Atheism are the Tyrants, Mass murderers, and Serial killers‚ĶThe Hitler‚Äôs, the Ted Bundies‚Ķ the Hannibal Lecters… The Sociopaths and Megalomaniacs who… like Wild beasts devour and enslave their fellow human beings *as if they are mere Space Algae* .
These are the Atheist ‘Realists’, who live under the conviction that all Morality and Law‚Äôs of society are merely Human conventions‚Ķand that there is no Real ‚ÄėHigher moral Law‚Äô than their own Will.
They are God’s unto themselves.
Thus unless you (Atheist Greg) are prepared to accept that these Killers are absolutely right, and are prepared to drop any sense of Moral consciousness you have, I say
‚ÄėGarbage!‚Äô‚Ķ to you!
I say deep within you know there is a real Higher Moral Law… you know that you are a Moral being… and these things all point to the notion of *Universal Justice*… God will judge!

…and as I was saying Atheists hate this Knowledge and seek to hide themselves from it.
They despise Christians for their ‘Pesky declarations’ which puts a tourch light on them…reminding them of their flight from Reality and their knowledge of the Truth.

Thus We witness the Ironic spectacle of Atheists who insist they are Moral, yet deny all Moral Obligation! They are ‘moral’ in their own eyes, and ‘holy’/without sin according to their own standards.
*How Convenient!* ūüôā

What Basis is left for Morality if God… the Divine Lawgiver is Obliterated?
Atheist Materialists in the 1800s admitted that Materialism was the end for objective morality, yet the Modern atheist is not so bold, nor so rigorous as to where their premises ultimately lead, and instead pretend that their Atheism makes them *more moral than theists!* and they attempt to utilize Historic atrocities committed in God’s name as evidence that ‘religion is evil’… forgetting they have no ‘higher ground’ upon which to stand to make any such moral judgments, and that in doing so they are applying standards which are not theirs to use!
Such a one eyed approach which only looks at particular negative historic events does not succeed in knocking all religion off it’s perch, or by default add one ounce of objective moral reality to Atheism.
While defending God’s Divine right to execute judgments upon Mankind, Christians themselves are just as rigorous as any atheist in their condemnation of atrocities like 911, or the Salem witch trials…committed in God’s name.

I attended a Debate in Auckland a Few years ago between Matthew Flannagan and Prof Bradley on the topic ‘Is God the source of morality’ in which Dr Flannagan presented the God Command Moral theory, and the atheist Prof Bradley made the statement that he believed that because God does not exist that therefore he cant be the source of morality.
Instead he argued morality can only be founded upon ‘sentiment’!!!
Now ‘sentiment’ is an absolutely pathetic, subjective, and culturally relative foundation without any authority to impose Moral obligations! (and I criticised him for it at question time!)
This is really the subject fit for another Blog post, yet what is interesting about the modern Atheist is that they cannot bear the reality that their belief system is definitively Amoral and De-humanising.
To avoid this they attempt to change the game as to what morality really is.

See this debate Here:

Important End Note:
The Genesis story of the Fall of Mankind into sin declares that we were transformed from a child-like innocence into a ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil’, and It is this inner knowledge of Good and Evil which makes all mankind, in all times and places, accountable and Guilty before God and deserving of Judgment because they all have a knowledge of their own moral responsibilities. Thus I am saying that the Savage whom tortures his neighbor to death *knows he is committing Evil*… even if he has never herd of Jesus Christ. And God will Judge him for it. So too with the Atheist who does not believe Jesus Rose from the dead. This denial does not negate the Atheists own knowledge of sin, and guilt for his immoral actions for which God will hold him accountable.
Thus contrary to what Many atheists assert: The Bible does not deny Atheists cant have any sense of Morality… it insists that everyone does!
What We Christians say is that the Atheist position cannot justify their morality…. That Atheism itself is Amoral, and that it leads to mere cultural relativism, and social arbitrary law.
When Atheists claim to be moral, they a contradicting themselves.
Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible Believer, Dispensationalist, Libertarian, Christian.

Read More…

Hiding in the Dark….

The Valley Girl Apologist…The Illogically Hostile Side of Atheism.

‚ÄúKeep things in the shallow end‚Ķ because I just didn‚Äôt want to know‚Ķ‚ÄĚ

Atheists are Religious fanatics

Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.

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

Sir Bob Jones. Prophet of Nihilism. Advocate of Jackboot Civilisation. Pillar of Savage Society.

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


“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Q.XVIII (1782)

From one of the very best political/Christian Libertarian/ historical pages on Facebook ‘The Founders,Religion and Government’ Here:

Sir Bob Jones needs to take a good long hard look at himself, and admit that when he scoffs at Christianity, that he (and all Sowers of Atheism) work not as they claim for the betterment of society, but for the destruction of Freedom and morality… Read about that Here:

Fanatical Antichrist Ayn Rand. Megalomaniac.

This quote from Jefferson also exposes the gross delusions of Ayn Rand and her fantical worshippers… their capacity to ignore Reality…

“America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the ‚Äúunaided‚ÄĚ power of their own intellect.” | Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

^^^That is Patently false. Ayn Rand attempts to rob American Libertarianism of it’s Christian foundations, and enthrone Godless ‘Reason’.
She too is a wolf in sheep‚Äôs clothing… claiming to be a champion of liberty and rights, while attacking the very foundations of those Ideals.

The Late Great Christian Libertarian Francis Schaeffer explains just how absurd and dishonest Objectivism is here:
Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less

In his candid biography ‘My life with Ayn Rand’, Her greatest disciple Nathaniel Branden (whom she dubbed ‘John Galt’) admitted she became completely divorced from reality. She was Tyrannical… demanding absolute submission to her dictates.
No room for freedom of thought.
You had the right to follow your own conscience…as long as it was 100% in alignment with their great leaders teachings.
And this is still be the defining trait of Objectivists today.
They have conformed themselves into little imitations… little graven images of their Atheist Deity.

Nathaniel Branden would eventually be caste out and demonized because he wanted to end his sexual/ adulterous relationship with Rand.
Incapible of tollerating such an honest evaluation of their Goddess. The most Rabid Rand worshippers have judged the Brandens as being Diablocal, and say that Ayn Rand was not an all-powerful Cult Leader, but a ‘pure of heart’ victem of the Brandens Cunning…

Intolerant Objectivism is busy strangulating Liberatrain movements around the globe…

Read about the Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism Here:

Read how classical Libertarianism used to care… Here:

God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)

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 ‚Ķ way too mechanistic‚Ķ and thankfully humans are not machines‚Ķand thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve‚Ķ Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism‚Ķ most believing such Ideas that ‚ÄúAll Muslims are Evil‚Ä̂Ķ ‚ÄúAll Christians hate Gays‚Ä̂Ķ 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 ‚ÄėCornell‚Äô has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo‚Ķ.

‚ÄúIt’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. ‚Äú 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‚Ķ ‚ÄúThou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..‚ÄĚ
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.

The Rusty Cage: Scientism.

Are you Lost in Scientism?
Lies destroy our grip on reality.

The Bible tells us of a Necromancer whom raised the prophet Samuel’s Ghost.
Do you doubt this really happened? Do you assume science proves this is impossible? If so you have been decieved!
Science has proven no such thing!
You have been decieved into believing Science proves Materialism/ monism/ Naturalism!
You have been Mentally Hobbled!

If you have been conditioned to believe Reality is strictly limited to only what Empirical Science can substantiate, then you are trapped in the Straight jacket of Scientism.
If you Believe absolutely in Naturalism, No God, no Ghosts, No miracles… You are a prisoner of Scientism.
If you Believe that Material reality is the only reality… You have been Smoked by Atheist Scientism.
Scientism is form of intellectual Coffin Torture!… a closeted mentality… a short sighted blindness… a vanity.
Scientism is a Religion…and not a very intelligent one at that!
Scientism is Irrational.

The day anyone realizes the trap that is Materialist Naturalist Scientism, and boldly embraces the possibility of Super-naturalism…is a day of personal Liberation!
It is an awakening…to a greater reality… Greater possiblities… more plausible probabilities!
It is mind expanding… Freewill is not an Illusion!
It puts Emperical Science (and our sences) into their proper context.
It apprehends their limitations.
It allows the enlightened person to shrug off the absurdities, the Gross implausibility, the wild superstition, The Deadness, The Amorality, The Meaningless, The Purposeless, The enslavement and surrender to Determinism…that Materialist Naturalism demands of it‚Äôs devotees.

Hour Of Power. The Great Dr Robert Schuller (Senior).
“Faith is the Optimistic vison of a Possiblity thinker, whereas Atheism is the Pessimistic lack of vison of an impossiblity thinker…” (Quote from memory)

Then One can look back at the past 500 years and appreciate the how the Ideologies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Scientism came about, and why they have successfully blinded the minds of millions of Men whom vainly consider themselves ‚ÄėSuperior‚Äô‚Ķ ‚ÄėModern‚Äô‚Ķ ‚ÄėMen of Reason‚Äô‚Ķ. ‚ÄėLiberated from ‚ÄėFaith‚Äô and Superstitious Error‚Äô, Etc yet ultimately have proven to be Blind, leaders of the Blind.

Thus saith THE LORD…
There is No conflict between True Religion/ The Bible, and True Science!
The Bible gives us access to a reality which is otherwise beyond our reach.
The Bible is Super Natural…Divine Revelation.

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
Francis Bacon…The Father of Modern Science.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor2vs114)
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:…” (1Tim6vs20)
St Paul

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian. Libertarian. 1611 King James Bible Believer. Dispensationalist. Possibility Thinker.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.

Scientism may refer to science applied “in excess”. The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:

To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.
This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
To refer to “the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,” or that “science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective” with a concomitant “elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.”
The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.

For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as J√ľrgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.

1 Overview
2 Relevance to science/religion debates
3 Philosophy of science
4 Religion and philosophy
5 Rationalization and modernity
6 Dictionary meanings
7 Media references
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

OverviewReviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Petersondetects two main broad themes:

It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).
Mikael Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism.In the Encyclopedia of science and religion, he writes that, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).

According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone. This idea has also been called the Myth of Progress.

E. F. Schumacher in his A Guide for the Perplexed criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. “The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn’t be counted, in other words, it didn’t count.”

Relevance to science/religion debatesThe term is often used by speakers such as John Haught against vocal critics of religion-as-such.[25] Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism'”.

Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.

The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as “simple ordinary science”, but as a replacement for religion.

Gregory R. Peterson writes that “for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins”.

Susan Haack argues that the charge of “scientism” caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of science. Instead we find:

the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers
a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific.

Philosophy of science
In his essay, Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as “an essentially anarchic enterprise” and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over “dealing in knowledge” and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at “making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more ‘objective’ and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules.”

[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and … non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so … Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science… In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

‚ÄĒ Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii

Religion and philosophyPhilosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)” or “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true” cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[32]

Rationalization and modernity: Rationalization (sociology)
In the introduction to his collected oeuvre on the sociology of religion, Max Weber asks why “the scientific, the artistic, the political, or the economic development [elsewhere]‚Ķ did not enter upon that path of rationalization which is peculiar to the Occident?” According to the distinguished German social theorist, J√ľrgen Habermas, “For Weber, the intrinsic (that is, not merely contingent) relationship between modernity and what he called ‘Occidental rationalism’ was still self-evident.” Weber described a process of rationalisation, disenchantment and the “disintegration of religious world views” that resulted in modern secular societies and capitalism.[33]

“Modernization” was introduced as a technical term only in the 1950s. It is the mark of a theoretical approach that takes up Weber’s problem but elaborates it with the tools of social-scientific functionalism‚Ķ The theory of modernization performs two abstractions on Weber’s concept of “modernity”. It dissociates “modernity” from its modern European origins and stylizes it into a spatio-temporally neutral model for processes of social development in general. Furthermore, it breaks the internal connections between modernity and the historical context of Western rationalism, so that processes of modernization‚Ķ [are] no longer burdened with the idea of a completion of modernity, that is to say, of a goal state after which “postmodern” developments would have to set in‚Ķ Indeed it is precisely modernization research that has contributed to the currency of the expression “postmodern” even among social scientists.

‚ÄĒ J√ľrgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity

Habermas is critical of pure instrumental rationality, arguing that the “Social Life‚ÄďWorld” is better suited to literary expression, the former being “intersubjectively accessible experiences” that can be generalized in a formal language, while the latter “must generate an intersubjectivity of mutual understanding in each concrete case”:[34][35]

The world in which human beings are born and live and finally die; the world in which they love and hate, in which they experience triumph and humiliation, hope and despair; the world of sufferings and enjoyments, of madness and common sense, of silliness, cunning and wisdom; the world of social pressures and individual impulses, of reason against passion, of instincts and conventions, of shared language and unsharable feelings and sensations…

‚ÄĒ Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science

Dictionary meanings
Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term “scientism”:

The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.

Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.

An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.

The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.

The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.

“A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.”

“1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.”

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


The Late Great Libertarian Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer explains why The philosophy of Libertarian Inalienable rights is the historic fruit of the Judeo-Christian world view, and that Atheist Materialism is the Death of all morality, and human value, and has no basis for objective Law. This explains why with the growth of Atheism, Democratic Nations like America and New Zealand have become exposed to unchecked Mobocracy, having removed belief in God given inalienable rights and objective morality. What remains is the arbitrary whim of the masses. In the atheist reality there is no Higher authority. Any ‘Rights’ we now possess may be removed at any moment. They are no longer Inalienable but dependent upon the whims of Parliament. To restore true Libertarian rights *As sacred* is my Mission. I preach the Gospel Of the Grace of God, so that sinners might be saved, and also to restore faith in the Judeo-Christian cosmology which underpins human value, objective morality, esp The Rights of the individual. Many modern Christians have forsaken the Political Enlightenment that followed in the wake of the Reformation, and have been led down the garden path into tyranny and subjection by the ‘Humanist’ worldview. I seek to recover them from the snare of Devil, and restore faith in the trustworthiness of the Bible and the foundations of Liberty and equality. It has taken strong delusions to blind Christianity to the truths which I hold to be self-evident: That God created Man equal and endowed him with certain inalienable rights… Tim Wikiriwhi.