Stephan Molyneux — And the point on which I disagree with him.

Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian philosopher who has made what I consider to be an extremely important video, titled "The Sunset of the State". I consider it a true "must see" for all individual freedom lovers and nominal Christians!

The Sunset of the State - YouTube video


Libertopia - Stefan Molyneux - The Future Will Be Nothin Like The Past 10-23-11 - YouTube video

Stephan is also a blogger, essayist, author, and host of Freedomain Radio, (in the words of Wikipedia) "claimed to be the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web". The web's a competitive place, so that's quite an accomplishment, in and of itself! Stephan also has a YouTube channel, also called "Freedomain Radio", to which I subscribed.

In the first of the above two videos, "The Sunset of the State", Molyneux says in pertinent part:

"The central tenet of all systems of human morality is the non-aggression principle. But then, when we get older, if we have the courage to see, we understand that this is not how adult society is run at all. Using violence to get what you want is the foundation of the society we live in."

"Our statist system has become so ridiculously complicated because it has, like the earth-centered model of the solar system, a fundamental error right down at the root of it. This error is the belief that violence is the best way to solve complex social problems, the decision that if you point enough guns at people, run up enough debt using the unborn as your collateral, kidnap and enslave enough free souls, that the world will just get better and better and better."

"When you recognize that increasing complications reveal core errors at the root of a false system, you will see that the non-aggression principle needs to move to the center of our virtues, of our morals, of our society as a whole. Like the sun itself, it needs to be fixed at the center of everything we do."

"When the sun was moved to the center of the solar system, where it actually is, it was disorienting to everyone at the time … just as evolution is disorienting to many …” In the face of ancient falsehoods, the truth is often dizzying and confusing and alien and freaky. When we place the non-aggression principle where it should be, at the center of morality and society, beliefs we have held for tens of thousands of years evaporate."

"The ancient error of the morally justified state crumbles into its component atoms of evil. The dizzying and multiplying complexity of law upon law, gun upon gun, murder upon murder … all this ugly mess is revealed as hysterical attempts to cover up the core crime of justified institutional violence. The myth of the social contract is revealed as a gun to the necks of the unborn. Laws are exposed as well-armed prejudices. Taxation is revealed as theft, lobbying as bribery, arrest as kidnapping, governments and armies as the most successful criminal gangs, and schools as violence-fueled indoctrination camps for helpless and dependent children."

"You’ve been lied to your entire life by people who have been lied to their entire lives for the benefit of those who desire power over you. It is disorienting. It is confusing. It is frightening. It is dizzying. And it is true."

The truth of Molyneux's words is profound, and I very much agree with him. Problem is, in my view, they don't quite tell the whole story which needs telling. As a result, some doubt as to the clarity of the logic could still remain in the mind of the reader. This is especially true in the face of the coercion of deception, political correctness and government force designed to steal your labor through such devious and subtle means as debt-based fiat "legal tender"1 used as a compulsory medium of exchange (aka "money"2).

Regarding political correctness, Andrew Klavan had this to say:

"If there’s one thing that is urgently important in a world where individuals are respected, it’s a respect also for authenticity that a man should be what he seems to be. Political correctness is almost … it comes very close to legislating authentic behavior. It tells you what you must think and what you must say in order to be good. And that is essentially telling people to lie, because if we can’t explore our thoughts, if we can’t speak our feelings without being completely ostracized, how can we ever reach that place of authenticity? So I do believe, I do believe, that we have attached, or at least the left and the media especially, has attached a sort of virtue to being inauthentic through political correctness. I just think that it’s deeply offensive and destructive."

Along the same line of thought, comedian George Carlin said:

Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict [authoritarian] codes and rules…Political correctness cripples discourse, creates ugly language and is generally stupid.”

I completely agree with Klavan and Carlin, and could not have found more effective words to make the point.

As far as I can tell, Molyneux professes to be an atheist. Or at least that seems like a reasonable assumption in view of the fact he appears to mildly poke fun at "many people" who he says are "disoriented" by evolution.

There is no need to go to great lengths to flesh out the theist-versus-atheist disagreement. I have already dealt with that at some length elsewhere on this website in an essay titled "On the Atheism Display at the Mesa County Public Library". It is enough to say that the logic of what is known as "Pascal's Wager", posited by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal, is clear and acceptable to me personally.

It seems to me that Molyneux omits all rational connection between economics and so-called "religion", which has the confusing side effect of ignoring the possibility of religion being used as a manipulation in the field of economics to steal the "other guy's" labor.

I view the theist-versus-atheist conflict as completely specious, starting with the unacceptable obfuscation and lack of specificity of words such as "theist" and "atheist", and "religious" and "secular". All of these words simply mean "world view", which, in turn, means how you think the universe around you actually functions. And there are far too many things we know too little about to justify any degree of aggressive emotional dogmatism, which, in turn would appear to be a self-evident per se violation of Molyneux's "non-aggresion" principle.

The alleged "logic" of the popular atheistic inferred canard that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-present Intelligent Designer — or in the words of the Founders' Declaration of Independence, an "Almighty Creator' — would somehow be incapable of using a tool/process such as evolution, either in whole or in part, to bring into existence some or all of the things we see around us, totally escapes me.

But let's cut right to the chase. Neither the theist nor the atheist can prove diddley squat to the other. Accordingly, I view most of such conversations to be primarily manipulative, with some unspoken economic or political agenda in mind. As an aside, it is harder to prove a negative than a positive, so, for purely pragmatic reasons, I would rather be in the role of trying to prove there is a God than that there isn't one.

But it's much easier than that. I like to tell atheists that, since neither of us can prove the correctness and/or wisdom of his position to the other, I like to think of theism and atheism as two fairy tales, one with a happy ending (intelligent design or ID which implies possible life after death and immortality), and one with a sad ending (random conglomeration of molecules or RCOM which implies nihilism and the finality of death). I make a conscious, fully informed, logic-based decision to choose the fairy tale with the happy ending because it makes my life happier and more satisfying. What's in it for me to choose the fairy tale with the sad (or nihilistic) ending? Nothing, as far as I can see, as long as I keep an open mind in the endless ongoing intellectually honest attempt to acquire knowledge.

Happily, Molyneux's arguments about "non-aggression" morality would seem to logically indicate that he is not a "moral nihilist". Interestingly, expressed in "religious" terms, Molyneux's so-called "non-aggression principle" is, from a practical point of view, pretty much the same as The Golden Rule (aka The Second Great Commandment, or ethic of reciprocity) and The Ten Commandments (especially "thou shalt not murder" and thou shalt not steal" which have clear political and economic ramifications).

It has probably never occurred to most atheists that Jesus was arguably history's most powerful and effective anti-statist. Most of them have not read works such as "A Biblical Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism" which say things like "We must forthrightly reject the modern myth of separation of church and state and embrace instead the abolition of church and state", and "Our Answer to Separatists". I suspect the idea has never occurred to most statist atheists that there exist both theist anti-statists and atheist anti-statists.

I much prefer the term "anti-statist" to the term "anarchist" because seriously disordered and immoral gubmint destroyers have cleverly manipulated the word "anarchy" in the minds of the general public to be precisely synonymous with "chaos/danger/fear/death/destruction", when nothing could be farther from the truth. The exact opposite is true: it is the "state", that is "government", that is the endless stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"3, which is in reality chaos/danger/fear/death/destruction and utterly UNsustainable. It is the State which equals stealing the "other guy's" labor and property, and murdering him in the process if that proves necessary due to his resistance to his enslavement. As Molyneux says in his video, "we have been lied to all our lives by people who have been lied to all their lives."

The key to the success of the "government" deception has been the sinister development of two separate languages and sets of syntax, one for "government" and one for the individual. For example, when and individual deliberately kills someone, it is called "murder". When the state deliberately kills someone, it's called "execution", "law enforcement", "justice", "war casualty', ad infinitum.

It would take whole separate essays to deal with all the state/individual double and exact opposite meanings of words such as God, law, government, money, ad infinitum which sociopathic government destroyers use to deceive and control the minds of the "little" people. But I want to get past my points of agreement with Molyneux to my point of disagreement.

I agree the state is UNsustainable, primarily for three organic reasons4 I call 1) the Infinity Glitch, 2) the Government Glitch, and 3) the Producer-Consumer Glitch. Where I disagree with Molyneux is that, not only do I choose the fairy tale with the happy ending, I do so for specific economics-and-politics-related reasons.

As Jesus, J.R.R. Tolkien, and countless others of history's giants have taught us, statist government, that is, One Ring of political Power Over the Other is inherently evil and inevitably corrupting.

Historically, the scum5 who call themselves "government" — in reality merely the dominant members of the stupid-human pecking order struggle know as "politics"3 — have always resorted to fear, mayhem, pain, torture and murder to force their subjects into obedient servitude.

And here is the crux of my disagreement with atheists (and Molyneux): when gubmint is torturing and killing you because you refuse to consent to their mastery over you, when, like Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Martyrs, you are being, crucified, burned at the stake, dismembered, skinned alive, fed to the lions, etc. When you are being drawn and quartered, when your genitals are being sliced off and your guts pulled out (a la the movie Braveheart6), IT MATTERS VERY MUCH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, what your "world view" is. When the rubber really meets the road, at that ultimate of all confrontations between good and evil, that ultimate of all confrontations between the individual and the state, that ultimate of all confrontations between freedom and tyranny, along with most of America's Founders, I truly believe with all my heart, soul, mind, strength and logic that those individuals with what we theists call "faith" in a Higher Power (aka "God", aka "Intelligent Design") infinitely greater than the collective power of the mindlessly evil statist herd that is murdering them, in other words, with an unshakable hope in the fairy tale with the happy ending, an unshakable hope of such as life after death and/or "heaven", will undoubtedly prove to be braver, stronger, and better able to meet their physical demise with calmness and peace of mind than the atheistic moral nihilist who has nothing to look forward to, or otherwise strengthen him, than the mere cessation of his agony and despair.

THAT is why I prefer theism to Molyneux's alleged, and what I consider to be inadequately reasoned, atheism. THAT is why I believe any intellectually serious anti-statist must, of logical necessity, reject the world view, the "religion" if you will, known as "atheism". Simply put, as a general rule, I believe that individuals who possess a logic-based faith in God will possess the strength to die a better death than atheists who have nothing more to base their strength on than a nihilistic hope for the cessation of their pain/existence.

On his YouTube channel, Freedomain Radio, Molyneux has a four-part presentation titled "Why You Are Unemployed" which should be required watching for every person who is unemployed, especially Part 4. Following are the four parts:

The Handbook of Human Ownership - A Manual for New Tax Farmers - YouTube video

Why You Are Unemployed - Part 1 - YouTube video


Why You Are Unemployed - Part 2 - YouTube video


Why You Are Unemployed - Part 3 - YouTube video


Why You Are Unemployed - Part 4 - Fiat Currency - YouTube video


Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians! - YouTube video

Under construction . . .

RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Phyliss gave me an incredibly cool book titled "Our Path to Sustainable Living" she made on Shutterfly. Just click on the picture of the cover (to the left) to see the book, and then click on the "View Photo Book" link to see all the photos. Lately, I had been feeling like I've been neglecting taking photos to put on my website. So this was a truly marvelous birthday present, because it has seventy pages of photos to chronicle our progress in the ongoing process of turning our 2.5-acre farmette into a state-of-the-art sustainable living space. I can't wait to get the greenhouse, chicken house/area and vineyard finished so I can start taking pictures of my own. I can't imagine a better birthday present! Thanks, Phyliss!

Chris Hedges: Zero Point of Systemic Collapse - "We stand on the cusp of one of humanity’s most dangerous moments."

Ted Nugent performs the Star Spangled Banner (US National Anthem) on Glenn Beck FOX News - YouTube video


The Handbook of Human Ownership - A Manual for New Tax Farmers - YouTube video by Freedomain Radio

The Story of Your Enslavement - YouTube video by Freedomain Radio

Reflections And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo {Full Film} - YouTube video


(REPOST: AUDIO FIXED) Ron Paul "This Is Much Bigger Than The Great Depression!" - YouTube video


Max Keiser: "Sitting on The Doorstep of Global Conflict!!" - Alex Jones Tv 1/2 - YouTube video


Max Keiser: "Sitting on The Doorstep of Global Conflict!!" - Alex Jones Tv 2/2 - YouTube video


Thomas Sowell -- Dismantling America - YouTube video


The World According to Andrew Klavan - YouTube video - One of life's important little pleasures is watching a genuinely bright mind articulate its well-thought-out ideas. In the process of explaining how he went from the secular-Jewish atheism of his youth to Christianity, Klavan said: "If there's one thing that is urgently important in a world where individuals are respected, its a respect also for authenticiy that a man should be what he seems to be. Political correctness is almost, it comes very close to legislating authentic behavior. It tells you what you must say in order to be good, and that is essentially telling people to lie, because if we can't explore our thought, if we can't speak our feelings without being completely ostracized, how can we ever reach that place of authenticity? So I do believe that we have attached, or at least the left and the media has attached a sort of virtue to being inauthentic through political correctness. I just think it's deeply offensive and destructive."


'On the Edge' with Max Keiser - Stefan Molyneux Interview - YouTube video - Interesting discussion on the non-initiation of force philosophy as it applies to gubmint. A fascinating argument is raised: it is impossible to be philosophically consistent and argue against property rights because property rights stem from self-ownership, and when you argue against them, you are using your body (aka exercising self-ownership) to do so. Technically therefore, you are using self-ownership to argue against self-ownership, and that doesn't work.


Restoring Honor To Terry Lakin: Glenn Beck - YouTube video - Dr. James David Manning is chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church on 123rd Street in New York City. May God bless this UNhyphenated black American patriot! And God bless Lt. Col Terry Lakin! In my opinion, the judge (Army Col. Denise R. Lind) who made this cover-up ruling should be tried for treason and executed. IMO, EVERY person, especially right-wing radio, TV and T-Party stars, who does not want to know the truth about Obama's lack of constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States is a traitor to the U.S. Constitution!


Muslim Demographics - YouTube video - the video has received 12,221,565 views - Islamophobia? Nah, just statistics. Wanna live in a barbaric Sharia dictatorship? Might want to consider the options then! This video has received 12,220,640 views. An American who doesn't realize that Sharia is irreconcilable with, and anathema to, the U.S. Const & Bill of Rights is an illiterate fool! Notice that what Muslims NEVER talk about is who chooses their mullahs and imams, and by what process they are chosen. Fact is, Islam is an inbred "good old boy" autocratic oligarchy. How does that FACT sit with leftists? Only disordered illiterate morons would try to use violent, imperialistic, misogynistic, barbaric Islam to destroy nonviolent Golden-Rule Christianity as a matter of preferred political strategy solely for their collectivist Marxist purposes.


We Don't Need No Re-Education - PJTV video from Pajamas Media - A very interesting discussion about Obamacare by three very bright guys. Check it out!

Money As Debt - Google video

America: Freedom to Fascism - Google video

FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution - Google video

End of Liberty - YouTube video


Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 1/5 - YouTube video


Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 2/5 - YouTube video


Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 3/5 - YouTube video


Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 4/5 - YouTube video


Special Lord Monckton Interview: Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push Nwo Objective 5/5 - YouTube video


Mike Huckabee - What is the "Fair Tax?" - YouTube video - Excellent explanation! Economics 101 articulated so clearly that even beginnners and leftist nay sayers can understand!


'Aftermath'--William Shatner interviews Ruby Ridge massacre survivor - Examiner.com

FOOTNOTES:

1. In 1776, Thomas Paine said the following about "legal tender":

“The laws of a country ought to be the standard of equity and calculated to impress on the minds of the people the moral as well as the legal obligations of political justice. But tender laws, of any kind, operate to destroy morality, and to dissolve by the pretence of law what ought to be the principle of law to support, reciprocal justice between man and man; and the punishment of a member who should move for such a law ought to be DEATH.”

2. Money is supposed to function as a lubricant for barter. Person A has apples and wants to exchange them for wheat. Person B has wheat and wants to exchange it for shoes. Person C has shoes and wants to exchange them for apples. To facilitate the necessary exchanges of commodities in society, it is very desirable that there be some universally acceptable commodity/ies for which all three persons, A, B, and C, can exchange the products of their labor in order to obtain, or “buy,” what they need.

Traditionally, gold, silver, copper, iron, even fish hooks, furs, shells, and tobacco, have served as the mediums of exchange called “money. “ In order to have an honest and workable economy,” it is necessary for the medium/s of exchange to actually BE products/commodities with a commensurate amount of human effort inextricably attached to their production. What justice would there be is a man could be forced to do a month’s hard work in the fields and vineyards in exchange for a leaf, a pebble, a grain of sand, a blade of grass, or a small scrap of paper?

The starting point for misunderstanding money — or the start of bankster deception, if you prefer (I do) — was the invention of special names for the units of monetary measure. As Count Destutt de Tracy recognized, monetary misunderstanding would be much less likely if coins simply bore the specific weight and fineness of the metals they contained. This concept is used on cans and boxes of food, so why not money? The term “dollar” is analogous to the term “gallon” or the term “pound.” We don’t go to the grocery store to buy gallons and pounds, which are but useless words without reference to the actual substance being measured. We buy gallons OF MILK and pounds OF POTATOES. So the question arises: we wish to obtain gallons of milk and pounds of potatoes in exchange for dollars OF WHAT?

Any productive person can, in a lifetime, produce vastly more than will be needed in retirement. A gallon of milk earned in youth is still a gallon of milk in retirement. A pound of potatoes earned in youth is still a pound of potatoes in retirement. A house built in youth is still a house for shelter in retirement. So it would be with any honest unit of measure and any honest medium of exchange. There is no morally legitimate reason why a “dollar" earned in youth is not the same dollar in retirement.

Parity” is the word used for expressing the price of one commodity in terms of another. Parities will always be in a state of change in nature and in a free enterprise system (which we profess to have, but do not have). In a year of plenty for apples and scarcity for wheat, it might take four bushels of apples to trade for one bushel of wheat In a year of scarcity for apples and plenty for wheat, it might take four bushels of wheat to trade for one bushel of apples. And so it goes. In an honest economy (which we do not have), individuals are always free to channel the direction and extent of their efforts into producing whatever commodities they believe will best reward their efforts and meet their needs.

We see “inflation” as a gallon of milk “costing” more “dollars” at the supermarket this month than it did last month. What has actually happened is that the parity between milk and money changed. The more money that is created, the more its parity with all other products in the marketplace changes. The more money there is, the more its exchange “value” (aka purchasing power) depreciates against the commodities it is being exchanged for, resulting in consumer goods "costing" more numbers of "money". To see through the paper money fraud, it is necessary to understand that a gallon of milk is what it is, it does for your life what it does, and it is totally irrelevant to clear vision on the point whether it takes one copper penny or a wheelbarrow full of trillion dollar” paper notes to affect a voluntary exchange for that gallon of milk.

When asked whether the Russians would adopt a gold-backed currency to get their economy back on track, a Rand Corporation think tanker recently answered: “they wouldn’t want to adopt a 19th century position.” That statement implies that honest money (i.e. gold, silver, etc., or indeed any real commodity) is somehow a prehistoric dinosaur of an idea, and that we are inevitably headed into a space-age high-tech cashless society. See also Star Trek  IV. The truth is, the Founders knew all about money, credit, and public debt fraud. They had dealt with shaved coins, paper money, credit! debt, interest/usery and bonded indebtedness long before coming to America. They were very experienced in having their economic rights and life blood drained from them by parasite/predators. They drafted the US Constitution with the specific intent of preventing that sort of "legal” thievery in America.

3. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

4. I believe humans have three main problems. The first I call “the Infinity Glitch.” We can’t comprehend infinity. Oh, we can recognize and draw the symbol, and we can even semi-grasp the idea, but we can't assimilate it, feel it, and thoroughly UNDERSTAND it and be at peace with it in our gut. The same brain that can’t accept the ideas of no beginning and no end, once it has put a neat white picket fence around the universe, is the first in line to want to know what’s on the other side of the fence that supposedly now marks the end of the universe. The Infinity Glitch can drive the human mind crazy if we let it. I like to believe that’s what happened to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a truly bright mind — but not bright enough to keep from driving itself crazy.

The second problem is the inherent unworkability of the "mind-of-A-controlling-the-body-of-B" paradigm, which I call the "Government Glitch." The reality-based definition of the word is: “Government” = person or group A coercing (via a “legal” monopoly on violence and terrorism) person or group B to obey the will of A on pain of loss of life, liberty, and property. "501(c)(3) Church" = political pecking order organized to brainwash individuals into believing the lies that the theivery and murder perpetrated by "government" is the "will of God."  The reason “government” does not, indeed cannot, work is because when the mind of A is allowed to control the body (physical labor) of B, there is no end to the wants, demands, and expectations of A’s mind. The mind of A becomes drunk and mentally ill with power, and it just keeps demanding more and more until the body of B can no longer take it, and is forced to violent self-defensive revolution. If “in Power,” A’s wants, demands, and expectations are not restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself. If not “in Power,” then A’s wants, demands, and expectations are restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself. This fact is why self-sufficiency is vastly preferable to interdependency as both a virtue and a political theory. It is also the reason why, in the long run, no economy can function unless it is composed of willing buyers and willing sellers in a free market.

The third problem is economics-based. I call it the "Producer-Consumer Glitch." The way to identify and define a liar is if he disagrees with this absolute self-evident fact and statement: every single one of us, as an individual, wants to get paid as much as possible for his own labor and products, while simultaneously paying as little as possible (cheap is good, free is better) for the labor and products of “the other guy.” For some reason, we perceive the physical effort (aka “work”) required in the material plane to provide food, clothing and shelter for our robes of flesh (aka “bodies”) as pain to be avoided if possible.

Thanks to the suicidally stupid, inherently evil, inevitably corrupting, seemingly never-ending pecking order struggle of the human species, we seem to have the nasty collective habit of complicating, organizing, manipulating, institutionalizing and “culturizing” these three simple, self-evident, empirically observable facts/”glitches” into an unimaginably tangled and huge globalized mass of wars, genocides, famines, deprivation, pain, suffering, sorrow, and general amorphous evil.

5. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.

6.

Braveheart - FREEDOM scene - YouTube video


ShareThis