Category Archives: Philosophy

The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism.

The following is a speech I delivered at the Libertarianz Party AGM in 2006… the Tenth anniversary of the Party.
The main thrust of the speech was to decry the destructive notions contained within the Philosophy of Objectivism, and why I believe that Philosophy is the chief reason the Libertarianz Party never achieved any traction.
I was promised that my speech would be published in the next Free Radical… It never was.
Why? Ask the Fanatical Objectivist Editor Peter Cresswell.

This was just one example of how skewed The Libertarianz Party was/ is… Dominated/ perverted by The fanatically un-objective and Rabidly Anti-religious philosophy of Objectivism.
After 10 years of enduring their Fanaticism I realised The Libertarianz Party was as fraudulent as it was Hopeless, and so I left.
The Party was not truly Libertarian, but a recruitment scheme for the NZ Church of Objectivism, and as long as it remained so it would only succeed in turning away religious people from true Libertarianism.
You may be thinking… “FFS Tim its been 6 years since you delivered that speech…And you still have a Bee up your ass about not making the Free Rad?” To which I reply… “ Hell Yes!” I am still pissed about it. My speech was Important! I am putting it up Today because it contains valid criticism about how the Philosophy of Objectivism hurts The Libertarian cause around the globe, esp the Lies against religion, and self-sacrifice. This is the common experience around the globe. I consider Objectivism an insidious evil that perverts history and rots Libertarianism from the inside out…like a virus.
The more popular it becomes, the more untenable any Libertarian movement infected with it becomes for religious people.
The millitantly Atheistic aspect of Objectivism is not the focus of this Speech, The issues I raise are linked, and just as detrimental for the Libertarian movement.
I will let you read it to get what I am talking about.

And Lastly I post this Speech now because I have just quit discussions with a group of ‘Liberal minded Kiwi’ whom were considering starting a New Liberal Party that was hoped would take over from the Libertarianz Party and attract the support of those thousands of Liberal minded people who have lost faith in the Act Party. I quit those discussions because it became clear to me that this group are heading down the same failed course that castrated the Libz Party. Ie they want to enthrone Ayn Rand as Goddess, and consider anyone (Like Me) who critsises her Deity or atheist irreligion… to be a trouble maker… to be a malicious thorn… They are incapable of considering the validity of any Critisism of Randism.
Thus I believe any New party such narrow minded people start is doomed.
It will simply end up another vile atheist club that promotes the Bogus idea that Religious people cant be Libertarians.
It would be a waste of my precious time and energy to get involved with such a travesty.

Thus I post my speech now as a historical testament of the negative nature and perversion of the Libertarian movement by Objectivism, as a rebuke to any attempt to create a New Liberal Party that blindly worships Ayn Rand, and marginalizes everyone who criticizes her. I hope that in some small way My speech helps Religiously minded Libertarians in their struggle against this Rabid Ugly Atheist religion… not to abandon the cause of freedom which truly is the Christian Ideal.

To My Objectivist Friends I make no apology. An Eye for an Eye! If your Goddess was not such a Psychotic Vicious Narcissistic Megalomaniac Bitch there would be no need for me to confront you. Rand drew First blood, and you all dance to her tune… so I am here and now Justly returning you in Kind. As My speech shows… I have spent years trying to reason with you but to no avail. And I am not just saying these things. Rand and her sick philosophy is world Famous for its Self-delusion and Malice. For anyone wanting to check out the validity of what I am saying they ought to buy Nathaniel Brandens book “My years with Ayn Rand”, and Google James Valiant’s critism of the Brandens. Also go visit just about any objectivist group on the net and the same Egotistical guile will be there for you to behold. If I appear extreme in my tone… it is because I have swam in the cesspool that is Objectivism.
***********************************************************************

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

Good morning brothers and sisters!
This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it!
Today’s sermon is about integrity to truth and justice!
I want talk from my own philosophy and show how it keeps me committed to our party in the face of much hardship and I also want to question the validity of other philosophies that I see as detrimental to our cause.
In the spirit of friendship I have endeavoured to keep any criticism as impersonal as possible and yet as individualistic as possible so not to unfairly lump goodies with baddies simply because they all hang out under the same banner.
Most people here know I’m a Christian and though I will be unashamedly using Christian concepts, I hope non-Christians listening will be objective enough to see the points I am making as valid in spite of their religious origins.
If the shoe fits I hope you have the integrity to wear it!
Having set the tenor of my speech I shall now get into it!

I could have called this speech “Who Dares Wins” but I prefer to call it “Keeping the faith” Don’t become a Luke warm Libertarian!

We must Attack! Attack! Attack! With our dying breath! Attack!
This aint no game people! This is war!
Peoples lives are being destroyed!
Children are dying!

The most frustrating thing for me as an activist is convincing those poor souls out there who are being ram-rodded by the socialist tyrants to throw their lot in with the Libertarian party and putting up the necessary cash to win the fight, even when they can see we are 100% right!
This is so frustrating! I am busting my ass trying to help them but they wont even help themselves!
Did I just say that the sheeple are the most frustrating thing?
Sorry!
Let me now tell you that they aren’t the most frustrating! There is something much worse!
What is much more frustrating is that so many people who are members of our party, and claim to be passionate about freedom, never put themselves out in the slightest little inconvenience for the values they profess to hold dear!
What more a high percentage drop off after a period of good work as if they have done their bit!
I want to talk about this…about what bullshit is used to justify dropping the ball and why this is a travesty!

Why is it so hard to get Libertarians to go to meetings?
It has often been said that trying to organise any libertarian activity is like herding cats!
This is a disgrace! And I consider this a fundamental problem!
Recently I was asked a very important question…it was “Do you really believed it is possible to get a Libertarian government here in New Zealand?”
And I found that I could honestly answer, “Yes!”
I think this point is of vital importance!
So many great freedom fighters seam to loose faith in the dream and drift into inactivity.
We have many talented new faces, yet we are not gaining numerical strength on the front!
‘Loss of faith’ seams to keep us from making real gains.
Why is this?
The bible talks about different kinds of people and what they do with the seed of truth.
Some people are called “The wayside” where the truth cannot take root.
Others are the stony/shallow ground where the seed may sprout and shoot up, but when the heat of the day comes, the seed quickly withers and dies for lack of root and depth.
Some are called “the good soil” in which the seed shoots forth and is able to weather the heat and in due season bares much fruit!
I ask what sort of ground are you? How good is your value system?
Are you a Possibility thinker or an Impossibility thinker?, A pessimist, or an optimist?

People quit the party over petty little disputes or because someone like myself was too crass and not P.C enough to be worthy of their company!
We get the “ I must quit for personal reasons”…I always wonder what bullshit reasons are good enough?
Few quit for reasons of life and death!
Most are quitting for shameful reasons, and that disappoints me.
This lack of conviction makes me feel not pity but contempt!
The Bible says that “no man putting his hands to the plough yet looking back is fit for the kingdom!”
Some quitters retreat with the cowardly excuse that “only deluded dreamers believe the Libertarianz party will ever get its act together!
(thump table!)
I say this sort of pessimistic self-defeatism is self-defeating!
It is political suicide!
I see this lack of faith and resolve as the greatest enemy we face!
Our own irresolute determination to remain committed to the cause to our dying breath!
There is no reason/passion dichotomy!
If you don’t have the passion…There must be something wrong with your reasoning!

The Devil wants us to quit And would love to see our party fold! And guess what…The socialists aren’t beating us! We’re quitting due to our own fickleness!
Sloth and apathy are great sins!
Don’t give in to such temptations!
Never choose the low road!
Why do I reject defeatism and believe it is possible for Libertarian victory in our lifetime?
Well, first of all the competition is morally bankrupt to their core and utterly absurd!
I say to be quitters or fence sitters in the light of this indisputable fact is in itself an unforgivable lack of character and integrity!
“Lord give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference!”
Where’s your head at?
Where is your self respect founded?
Don’t go fooling yourself by thinking you are facing facts or being realistic when you deny the possibility of the Libertarianz party making global history and a giant leap forward in human civilisation!
You are being a quitter pure and simple a U.I.N!
You have no claim to a greater truth or higher reason
You are shirking the burden of carrying the torch of freedom and the scales of justice, pure and simple!
They are heavy but glorious!
And I can find no tolerable excuse for faltering in the face of the enemy!
The socialists aren’t beating us…were quitting due to our own fickleness!

The bible says that the lukewarm are to be spewed from God’s mouth!

As Individualist’s, when no one is prepared to stand beside us, we ought to be prepared to fight on alone, tooth and nail!
Loneliness ought to make you even more determined not to falter!
“Evil prevails when good men do nothing!”

The bible tells us never to forget our first love!
Never forget the principles and reasons you joined our party.
They become even more valid as time goes by.
Not less relevant, not less believable and essential, but more so every day!
Values are to be weighed against each other and the value of always choosing to sit on your ass smelling the roses instead of exhausting your time and resources in the Libertarian cause means you value pleasure more than justice.
What sort of human is that? A debauchee!
Certainly not a man of virtue!
While hundreds of so-called Libertarians sit on their arses, the Legions of Hell are marshalling!
Rust never sleeps!

We must daily review our highest values and renew our commitment to what is right and good!
In my view it is a very noble and great honour to work for the success of the party.
It is the measure of our integrity and fortitude!
I say “All play and no work makes Jack a very dull boy!”

What sort of person are you?
What moves you to action and to despise your own fears?
Why be active?
Why heavily invest yourself personally in this party?
I say for freedom lovers it is irrational not to commit yourself fully to the Libertarian cause!
If this cause is not important enough to get you out of your comfort zone what is?
In my ethical code full commitment to the party is not only the purest form of self-defence it is something even more praise worthy.
It is the defence of the poor, the week and the needy!
I.e. it is also the highest expression of charity and love of our fellow man!
A philosophy that does not include such love is shallow indeed!
Therefore to abandon this cause is to poison your soul with uncharitable inconsideration of your fellow human beings.
True love makes you go out of your way for others!

My Grandfather wisely reminds me that “No man is an island”
Free society, rights, etc are community values and meaningless to the lone castaway on a deserted island! My Grandfather is 100% right!
Being an individualist is no excuse for being uncharitable and I question the validity of a rational selfishness that excludes concern for others!
I say that’s a perverse individualism and the philosophy of cold self-conceit and a failure to value human life!
Think about Bill Gates. Is he a fool giving all his money to charity or is he a saint? How you answer that question will be a yardstick for your humanity.
I say Bill Gates is one of the greatest human beings ever to grace this earth!
He’s someone to aspire to, not merely for his genius but especially because of his heart!
Bill is my kind of guy!
Bill has won my heart and respect!
I’m not interest in hearing about his sins!

I ask, what sort of Libertarian society is possible without voluntary consideration of your fellow man and the desire for the common good?
The scripture says “though I have all wisdom yet not charity I am nothing!”
I ask how successful can any party be that is inconsiderate of the common good and does not make this a chief factor in seeking support.
That is just plain stupid and the public can see your fickleness!
That you don’t really give a damn about them!
I say the common good ought to be worthy of our inconvenience and is a vital yet grossly undervalued component in our fight!
Do you have a compassionate heart?
If you say you do, then I say “prove it!” by resolving never to waiver from the Libertarian cause!
Don’t tell me you care when you are backsliding from activism and party business!

Everything I am saying is aimed at our “ought ness” in the light of our own individual values. Nothing I have said is in anyway contrary to Individual voluntary action, Indeed it is the voluntary choice to commit ourselves to such a worth cause that gives us the right to have self esteem and to claim the high ground as the defenders of truth , justice and the common good! If any of you are mumbling under your breath that I’m trying to ensnare you in bondage to the collective I feel very sorry for you!
I’ll go further and say Altruism is a great good, and that you have been sold a giant Mickey if you think self sacrifice for the good of others can have no place in virtue for the individualist!
Right to claim a value always entails a cost or else its just lip service. Action defines personal values!
Long suffering is the keynote of high value.
A cost free value system is irrational and a cheap fake!
Even true friendship means we must be prepared to risk offending and loosing that friendship if we see the need to rebuke them for their own good!
The higher the value the more we must be prepared to sacrifice for it’s sake to claim it as our own. This being true it logically follows that Altruism is heroic when practised voluntarily and Jesus Christ was a great man of virtue!
He said it was out of love that he would give his life for his friends, and was faithful to his beliefs unto death even the death of the cross!
This is heroism!
The volunteer fireman, who risks the inferno for the sake of others.
The heroic rescue workers that entered the Twin towers on 9/11 and never came out!
The Christian heroes that died fighting evil in the flight that was supposed to hit the Whitehouse!
The army soldier who falls upon a grenade as a human shield for his Brothers in Arms!
These are indisputably mans greatest kind of deeds and acts of love and as such are worthy of the greatest honour!
Contrary to what Rand says, Altruism, in it’s true sense, is voluntary and is the highest expression of individualist values and character!
It is Love!
It opposite is a deluded egotistical ‘covetousness of self’ as the centre of reality! Self-worshipping Megalomania!
Sadam Insane is an ‘Egoist’ so was Adolf Hitler!

Yes we Individualists ought to be prepared to die for our faith and those we love.
Not to have contempt for death and hardship and relentlessly attack the enemy is to give the enemy the advantage!
They are often prepared to die for their beliefs!
Look at the suicide bombers!
Do they have values superior to yours?
They must if they will sacrifice their lives for them but many Libz wont even inconvenience themselves in the slightest to support your local Libz candidates!
I have made this point because my goal of this speech has been to inquire into the philosophical origins of inertia, and I see a collection of shallow excuses for denying what is indisputably the most heroic and noble of values… Altruist self sacrifice!
And this is a most common excuse for sloth in party activism and lack of willingness to carry the party’s burdens voluntarily and with honour.
I ask the question that if we were in ancient Greece facing the Persian horde who among you would stand at Thermopile?
They who will not inconvenience themselves in the fight against our pathetic socialist enemy, I guarantee would flee and die as cowards!

Christ said a philosophy may be known by its fruit.
Do you have love in your heart or contempt?
Many egoists, hiding behind ‘Individualism’, go out of their way to find fault with good Samaritans like Mother Teresa, and then fall over themselves praising someone who leaves a man to die in favour of getting to the top of a hill!
They do this so their peers will give them glory for being rugged egoists and to make themselves and their egoist buddies feel good about not giving a damn about anything but themselves!
And that’s a real ugly philosophy!
And it shows despite claims of integrity and honour!
That’s contempt for your fellow man!
That is not a passionate or compassionate philosophy but a dispassionate cold, and loveless one!
By that fruit I know its full of shit!
And the relevant point regarding party activism is that individuals with that philosophy have no problems ignoring a call to arms whenever it suits them and especially when there is little chance of personal glory!
That philosophy is costing our party dearly!
Both in lost manpower at the front and making our party ugly even when support such support is forthcoming!
I say Mark Inglis is a legless hypocrite and an asshole, not a hero!
He’s an Egoist!
“Stepping over corpses is the price of greatness” according to Hedrich Himmler! (And I say this total disregard for others is also the logical conclusion of atheism!)
Experts say David Sharp might have been saved and Sir Edmond Hillary would have forsaken his attempt at the summit and given it a shot!
He’s a real man of virtue not a vain poser!
And despite some silly ideas, Mother Teresa was a real Hero!
To paraphrase Barbara Brandon… “I have long since graduated from the school that perfection is the price of admiration, and I wonder from what lofty moral height some dare to gaze down onto a woman like Mother Teresa! Since she did not act according to their terms, her life of love and caring for the weak is seen as having no value! I do inquire into their psychology and I say their contempt does not become them. It stresses their distance from reality!
Enough said about bad philosophy, and why many Libertarians are as useless as tits on a bull to our party!
Self-serving, self-glorifying, small-minded intellectual masturbators!
The Bible says that “though we have all wisdom yet not charity we are nothing!”
Socialism is a giant tragedy and so if your heart is not breaking there is something wrong with you!
Christianity changed the world because it is a philosophy of Love and a call to action!
It has brought civilisation to the darkest regions of mankind!
It has turned cannibals into lovers of humanity!
How does your philosophy measure up to that?
Do you understand that hate can only be overcome by love?

Despite our many troubles and conflicting views, I’m still proud to be a member of this group and I’m prepared to continue to bare troubles and toils for its sake.
The Libertarianz Party does count because we force the public to choose between slavery and freedom!
You cant tell me that this isn’t an absolutely worthy truth that demands the man of virtue always to step up for the party, and hold it dear!
This party ought to be the embodiment of what makes you tick and of who you are!
And to live without making the greatest effort to achieve its goals is to fail to appreciate its greatness, and to grossly undervalue what has been built up to attack the enemy and liberate us from great evils.

What have I achieve with this speech?
Maybe nothing!
Hopefully I have started a revolution within a revolution!
I have done my utmost to encourage you all never to be quitters no matter what!
I have tried to expose the grievous weakness of egoism in revolutionary action and promote love as a chief overcoming motive energy.
By doing this you can swap a fake egoism for real self esteem and change Objectivism from the ultimate pragmatism into true Idealism!

Perigo had no qualm disputing Rand in regards to homosexuality, and I’m hopping you will do it again and acknowledge that Individualism need not be anti-altruism and indeed that when it is voluntary it empowers us to stand for our highest values and instils a heroic contempt for death and hardship!
Cowardly defeatism is for losers!
I call you all to live a heroic life for victory and start turning up to Libz meetings on a regular basis!
I pray for the strength to live up this high calling myself!
Of wearing the emblem of the Freedom Fighter!
I expect to see you all next year up at Waitangi!
God bless the Libertarianz!

Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988)
Scientist, genius, agnostic and freedom-lover.

A very fundamental part of my soul is to doubt and to ask. And when you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe.

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and in many things I don’t know anything about such as whether it means anything to ask, why are we here? And what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit if I can’t figure it out then I go to something else.

But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t have to. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things. By being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.

Possibly.

It doesn’t frighten me.

Attempted murder is a victimless crime

By definition, there are no murder victims.

Suppose you board a bus with a suicide bomber. At the appointed stop, the suicide bomber pulls the cord to detonate the belt of explosives around her waist, hidden under her jacket … and nothing happens. She lives to die another day. No one on the bus, including you, is any the wiser. There are no victims that day. But a crime has been committed. Attempted murder is a serious crime. A victimless crime, but a serious crime, nonetheless.

If you drive home blind drunk at 150 kph, with your children unseatbelted in the back and passenger seats, and you’re fortunate enough that there is no oncoming traffic on the several occasions when you veer into the other lane … and you and your children arrive home safely … it’s a victimless crime. But a crime has been committed. Driving while drunk is a crime. A victimless crime, but a crime, nonetheless.

There are obvious differences between the two cases. The suicide bomber intends to initiate lethal force against others, and the odds of success are relatively high. Whereas the drunk driver does not have murderous intent, and the odds of killing anyone are relatively low.

There are laws against attempted murder and laws against drunk driving. As there should be. But why?

Some libertarians get themselves into a tangle trying to justify a prohibition on drunk driving. At first glance, the non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle seems insufficient to justify a law against drunk driving. The drunk driver who arrives home safely does not, and does not intend to, initiate force against other road users. A common libertarian perspective is one where drunk driving is seen as a breach of contract between the road user and the road owner. In a libertarian utopia, roads are privately owned, and the road owner sets the terms of road use. When it’s in the commercial interests of road owners to offer safe passage to road users (as, almost invariably, it will be), sobriety will be a contractual obligation. Take this perspective, and you get the right answer … but for the wrong reason.

Drunk driving is wrong, not because it is a breach of contract (implicit in the case of our state-operated roads), but because it endangers the lives of others. It’s really quite simple. There ought to be a law against drunk driving because there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others.

Provisos apply.

Please note carefully. In cases where it is other adults only whose lives are endangered, and those adults have consented to having their lives endangered, no laws should apply.

Roads are dangerous places. When I go for a drive, I’m endangering my own life and that of others, simply by being behind the wheel, sober or otherwise. But there ought to be no law against driving per se, even though such a law would dramatically lower the road toll. But why not?

It’s really quite simple. It’s a matter of degree. The question is, where to draw the line? And the answer is, at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The above figure is arbitrary, and blood alcohol level is only a proxy for driver impairment, but this approach to endangerment is right in principle. Importantly, we can quantify the risk that a driver who has been drinking poses to other road users. We can multiply the chances of a fatal collision by the number of lives lost in the collision and come up with a number. And we can set a threshold. If the number is over the threshold, you’re too drunk to legally drive. If the number is below the threshold, it’s legal to risk getting behind the wheel.

We can apply the principle of an endangerment threshold to other issues, including the issue of parents endangering the lives of their children: allowing their children to climb trees, be vaccinated, be unvaccinated, ride bikes without helmets, travel to dangerous countries, sail, eat food cooked on an unlicensed Komodo Kamado or have their children live with them in Lyttelton houses in danger of being flattened by falling boulders.

In all cases, the same endangerment threshold should apply. Is the risk of staying with your children in your Lyttelton house more or less than driving them to safety after you’ve had one drink too many?

And one last question. Who gets to decide?

Drug-free January

It’s traditional.

Cocaine. So much cocaine.

Yes, folks, January is my month of self-imposed moral tyranny. But it’s for my own good! And, anyway, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

Do not suppose that my January regime is any less tyrannical for being self-imposed. No, sir, this ain’t a democracy. The party of my mind is a hoi polloi of hapless homunculi. It’s a rabble. It’s a rabble that needs to be told what to do (or, in this case, told what not to do). A rabble that must be roused or doused. By dictators. By benevolent dictators. With drugs.

The human soul is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. We’re made of meat, sweetmeat. But wait! Aren’t Christians supposed to believe that the human soul is immaterial, immortal and indivisible? Well, no, not necessarily. This Christian believes that the human soul is material, mortal and modular. It’s a Biblical view of things. Consider the New Testament account of how it all began.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

The King James Bible translates the Greek word λόγος (‘Logos’) as ‘Word’. Although ‘Word’ is certainly close enough, and an excellent choice, there is no exact translation. These days, I think, we might just as well translate λόγος as ‘Information’, ‘Reason’, ‘Algorithm’, or ‘Code’. In other words, software.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (KJV)

That’s right. It’s axiomatic in orthodox Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate. Incarnation literally means embodied in flesh or taking on flesh. Jesus became meat. Just like us.

Do you ever wonder why the zombies in zombie movies are so intent on getting some “brains”? Well, they don’t want to be the Living Dead. They want to be the Re-Incarnated. They want to be physically Resurrected! But for a non-lurching physical Resurrection you need nice, new resurrection bodies. Most importantly you need “brains”—the wetware—on which to run the software. (You are the software.)

Where were we? The rabble has rambled. Well, never mind… my mind? Where is it? Hahaha! Yes, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’ve been taking too many drugs! You’re thinking … drug-free January, Richard?! Good call!! Well, in the words of Malaclypse the Younger

‘Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

And that’s one thing that drug-taking does teach you. It teaches you that consciousness is chemical. And that the mind is modular.

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe …

The Green Manalishi.

Ever been attacked by an Evil Entity? I have. When I was 17 years old, living in a shed in the middle of Winter I experienced an Entity Attack.
I awoke in the middle of the night to to a feeling of dread. Paralyzed by the terror of an overwhelming Evil presence…I could not even cry out for help. Next It felt like the Being was trying to Possess me by putting its arms inside my arms and its legs inside my legs…putting me on like a suit… then it vanished. I was not a Christian at the time yet the experience bothered me deeply. I didnt talk about it that much. Some people say they had herd that it was a ‘sleep dysfunction’… ie ‘Rational folk’ write off all supernatural experiences as a form of ‘psychosis’.
As a Materialist myself at the time, I most likely chose to accept this non-supernatural interpretation of the event, and quickly forgot about it until Last night Sky TV did a show on the subject. ‘It’ has a name… The Entity Attack Phenomena. And On that show they estimated as many as 30% of all people have experienced it.
Now This interests me because this is a typical example of a real phenomena…possibly a legitimate spiritual experience which is automatically disclaimed by the materialist community as delusional because to admit they are real spiritual events explodes their Materialism to pieces.
Another interesting topic which correlates to this is the Near Death Experience. It has also been experienced by hundreds of people, yet again is written off as delusional by Materialists.

I became a Christian about a year after this experience, I don’t remember it being a factor in my conversion, yet today I do take comfort in the Christian truth that Christ is greater than any demonic Spirit. I still Battle devils in my sleep… as a soldier for Christ.

I am bloging this both to put this freaky experience into the Debating Arena, and fishing for any comments from others whom may have experienced this ‘Entity Attack’, or had a Near Death Experience, or some other Trippy Shit happen to them?
I have a relative whom it was said that he had a ‘Makatu’ hex put on him
Now He is an atheist and struggles to explain what He experienced. He does not talk about it. I asked him… “Do you believe in ghosts? He said ” No!…But Ive seen one…”
He had to get a moari spiritualist to remove it… yet he still maintains his atheism because Spiritualism scares him too much… He must rationalise away his experience via Naturalist sophistry.

Here is a link to an article on this ‘Entity Attack Phenomena”
http://www.mysteriaparanormalevents.co.uk/The-Entity-Attack-Phenomena.html

Here is another one on Incubus and Succubus:
http://www.hellhorror.com/demons/demonology/228/Incubus.html

Update: 23-7-12.
It appears This Satanic Being is murderous!
I just caught the end of a weird TV show ‘A Thousand ways to die’.
I told story about a Hot Chick who suffered regular ‘Nightmares’ in which she would be attacked/ strangled by a An Evil Dwarf-ish being. It Killed her! She died in her Sleep… from a heart attack.
The show said she was just one of hundreds of reported cases of of SUNDS… Sudden unexpected nocturnal death syndrome

Disclaimer: I am not an anti-science Mystic. I am anti-pseudo science. I call for higher standards and greater scientific rigor.
As a Christian, I still endorse the Laws of Physics, and look for natural mechanisms and explanations for phenomena yet also believe not everything in existence, and experience is explainable via materialistic causes and effects… *that is the primary assumption of the atheist Materialist*, which blinds their minds and makes then incapable of conceiving anything is evidence of the supernatural.
They are trapped in their own circular thinking. A prison of their own device.
This is the mindset that writes off everything as delusional which does not fit well with their Godless conception of reality.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

Objectivism is a religion!

Atheism is not a religion. The term ‘religion’ can properly be applied only to belief systems which include a belief in a god or gods. The term ‘religion’ can properly be applied only to belief systems which include a belief in the supernatural.

Objectivism is explicitly atheistic … but wait! Implicitly, Objectivists believe in a supernatural realm! It’s a cornerstone of the Objectivist philosophy! Surprise, surprise! Objectivism is not, after all, a naturalistic worldview.

Rand wrote an essay called The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made. In it, she says

Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different.

In other words, phenomena involving human action are not natural phenomena. They’re supernatural phenomena! Why? Because Man is a supernatural being! Why is Man a supernatural being? Because He has a supernatural power! And what is Man’s supernatural power? It is the ability to exercise something called libertarian free will.

Unfortunately, Objectivists are at a complete loss to explain how this works, to explain how it is even possible, or to explain how the notion of free will even makes sense according to the atheistic, materialistic worldview to which they profess to subscribe. Nonetheless, Objectivists are adamant that Man possesses free will.

Libertarian free will is a supernatural capacity. One who exercises it is a supernatural being.

Objectivism is a religion, but Objectivists worship Man, not God.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

Atheism in the public square

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!”

Positive Atheism tells us

This was not his reasoned opinion. Although John Adams often felt an urge to advocate atheism as a popular world view (because of the sheer abuses perpetrated by religious charlatans), he was of the firm and reasoned opinion (basically undisputed in his day) that religion is essential to the goal of keeping the masses in line.

Clearly, as Adams used the term, ‘atheism’ means “no religion”.

Jefferson famously said that

religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God

What of those who have no God? They have no religion. Jefferson also said

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It implies non-belief that there is a God. Atheism, as understood by Jefferson, is not a religious belief.

John Lennon wrote a song in which he famously asks us to

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

By religion, Lennon means belief systems which include beliefs in the supernatural—God, Heaven, Hell, etc. His view is that we’d be better off in a world in which there was no God, i.e., one in which atheism was true. In such a world there would be “no religion” and “all the people living life in peace.”

Atheism, as understood by Lennon, is not a religion.

Once every 5 years, New Zealand citizens are required to participate in a census. One of the questions seeks to elicit the respondent’s “religious affiliation”. According to Wikipedia,

In the 2006 Census, 55.6 percent of the population identified themselves as Christians, while another 34.7 percent indicated that they had no religion

That’s right, there is a box to tick labeled ‘No religion’. There are no boxes to tick labeled ‘Atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ or ‘Objectivist’. There’s not even a box labeled ‘Jedi’.

Atheism, as understood by Statistics New Zealand, is not a religion.

Wikipedia’s has an entry titled Irreligion in New Zealand.

Irreligion —the absence of religious belief or affiliation— is an increasing trend in New Zealand. Although New Zealand has no established religion, Christianity has been the majority religious affiliation since European settlement in the 19th century. The trend toward irreligion may indicate increasing secularisation as well as a rise in non-institutional spiritual belief.

Atheism, as understood by (some) Wikipedia authors, is not a religion. It’s an irreligion!

The meaning (or meanings) of a word is determined by the conventions governing its use. What those conventions are is determined by the facts of usage. (See examples above.)

It is not conventional to call atheism a religion.

It is conventional to rebuke those who do. 😉

Lies, damned lies, and ‘religion’

To lie is to bear false witness. It is to make an untruthful statement intended to deceive.

Jesus says, “Do not bear false witness.” (KJV) Lying is wrong. But why? Jesus explains,

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! (NIV)

Centuries later, the philosopher Immanuel Kant came up with a secular account of why it is wrong to lie which, it seems, Jesus had prefigured. In his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy, Kant went so far as to claim that it would be wrong to lie to a would-be murderer even to save an innocent life.

Truthfulness in statements that one cannot avoid is a human being’s duty to everyone, however great the disadvantage to him or to another that may result from it… [I]f I falsify… I… do wrong in the most essential part of duty in general by such falsification… that is, I bring it about, as far as I can, that statements (declarations) in general are not believed, and so too that all rights which are based on contracts come to nothing and lose their force; and this is a wrong inflicted upon humanity generally… For [a lie] always harms another, even if not another individual, nevertheless humanity generally, inasmuch as it makes the source of right unusable.

Kant based his moral philosophy on a maxim he called the Categorical Imperative.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

You cannot will that the maxim, “Bear false witness,” become a universal law! If we all lied, all the time, then soon no one would believe a word that anyone said. After a while, no one would even hear what anyone said.

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

Talk would be ignored, like a background noise tuned out. Ultimately, we’d be struck dumb. No one would bother to say anything at all, even the truth, since no one would believe him.

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

To lie is not merely to commit a crime against he to whom the lie is told. It is to commit a crime against language itself. St. Augustine said

But every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is evident that speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive one another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. To use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for its appointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there is any lie that is not a sin, because it is sometimes possible, by telling a lie, to do service to another.

Which brings me to my final point. Lying is an abuse of language. But it’s not the only one. The Biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” has its corollary in M. Hare’s maxim, “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.” Words have meanings. To say what you mean, you must find the words that mean what you mean to say, and say them. Mean what you say, and say what you mean. Surreptitious redefinition is a species of pernicious redefinition. It, too, is an abuse of language.

Words and phrases have meanings. For example, Christianity is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … and a religion. Secular humanism is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … but not a religion. The word ‘religion’ is used to distinguish between creeds whose central doctrines include the reality of a god or gods, and those whose central doctrines do not, or which are explicitly atheistic.

Lie and, ultimately, language ceases to function. Use the term ‘religion’ to encompass secular creeds, customs and ideologies and, ultimately, ‘religion’ ceases to function. Pernicious redefinition is tantamount to lying. Dare I say it’s also akin to theft?! I used to be a “liberal”, until today’s liberals took the term ‘liberal’ unto themselves. Now I’m a libertarian. But for how much longer? How much time do I have before I morph into a traitorous idiot?

Ayn Rand was a libertarian and atheism is not a religion.