Comment: you're quite welcome.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thank you,AnCapM.! Another (see in situ)

you're quite welcome.

evil, indeed.

Don't know why some like Stefan Molyneux has problem with the term "evil"; what, just because it has religious connotations, even though he himself uses the term frequently?

pfeh! Evil is evil, is evil!


Speaking of Moly, don't know why, but lately I've noticed a 'need' by some within the Liberty movement to want to 'purge' those of us who believe in or at least question the universe beyond what our 5 physical bio-signal sensors can perceive. Was there some truce/armistice within r3VOLution between atheists and faithfuls that I'm not aware of, that each 'faction' promised to not attack each other until the 2012 elections wrapped?

Well, 1st of all, the election AIN'T OVER, YET!

Secondly, I personally found the growing antagonistic tone even AT Porcfest 2012, and the liberty movement in general against non-atheists to be quite troublesome.

Even though I myself am not religious, but am humble enough to know that I do not know and fully accept that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."; we are surrounded by a majestic universe/multi-verse built on a set of rules something or someone designed.

Thus I shall keep on seeking, even after we get to see the day, hopefully within my lifetime, where if Drake's Constant holds true, are able to exchange origin myths, tales, and realities with other sentient species in the universe/multiverse(?), because apparently we seem to be lacking "sentient species" on earth, even with 7 billion of us. LOL.

Besides, me thinks it's very much un-AnCap, actually in fact very much collectivist, to be 'specifically looking to attract a different demographic' aka 'atheists' the way that Adam and Molyneux characterized it. Why not 'target' all other 'sub-groups,' as well? Last I checked, demographically speaking, if increasing our numbers is Adam & Stef's actual goal, "atheists" are still one of the smallest 'minorities.' So that excuse is bunk.

That goes the same for the likes of Austin Petersen and Jack Hunter looking to 'purge' those who question govt's fairytales on 9/11 or the very reality FACT of the Bilderberg Group, even though Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul himself acknowledges their existence, and their shady nature. But, most of aren't even saying it should be part of RP's or the R3VOLution's active platform, for now, anyway. So why all the fuss??

Why not let anyone and everyone feel welcome to the Freedom/Liberty/Individual Sovereignty movement, who respects the paleocon/minarchist doctrine of American Constitutional heritage, or more specifically apropos of libertarianism, just an acceptance of the NAP, the Non-Aggression Priciple/Axiom? As frankly, that's the ONLY 'requirement' for the label of "libertarian/minarchist/ancap" to be correct, anyway.

Why all this infighting? In fact, seems reminiscent of the split more ubiquitous within the Daily Paul as of late, too.

More sad, than anything, I suppose.

Regardless, hopefully it sparks a more healthy dialog than antagonism or demagoguery; growing 'pains' of a growing movement I suppose.

As much as I respect both Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux for their particular contributions, think it's always healthy to remain vigilant, no matter who they are. And when it comes to the manner in which they've handled their 'calls for more atheists among our ranks,' to make themselves feel more comfortable, I firmly believe they're wrong, along with their goal itself: our goals, if there is any 'ours' in this thing at all is to join forces and make coalitions with ANYONE who respects individual sovereignty and accepts the NAP, completely, not to attract any 'sub-political faction,' per-se, which is what our enemies always do: divide and conquer via race, religion, traits, sex, preference, political subdivisions, etc.

Besides, I'm with Ernie Hancock, the man who in fact, indisputably authored the now famous "R3VOLution" logo, all the way: no one can prove/disprove the efficacy of what one experiences within another person's mind. If you believe in individuals to act with moral conscience in your goal of a free, more voluntaryist society, which takes "faith" in your fellow man Stefan!, should you not tolerate that person to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, as long as (s)he does not actively seek to harm you?

Guess that logical fact is lost on Stefan.

Besides, as Ernie so emphasized, why PREVENT someone from questioning 'what if,' when so little is known about the universe, hell even our own origins to the very definition of what "consciousness" is?

What I don't get are the so called self-professed 'libertarians' and 'AnCaps' alike, who are suspicious of ALL govt data and assume them to be propaganda and guilty, until proven innocent, especially when it comes to economic data, military expenditures, govt-corporatist Wall St. Banksters/Mil.Ind.Complex, BigPharma, BigAgra, BigOil, Big___, war and domestic policies. Yet, when it comes to one of the most politically propagandized and subsidized field of them all, modern 'science,' they somehow comedown with their own case of Keynesian-esque alchemically mesmerized Lab-Whitecoat Cargo Cultism!

It is absolutely bizarre for a group of individualists who pride in being skeptical, because the conversation has become so polluted with rabid atheists on one side and rabid doctrinaire religious fundamentalists on the other, they knee-jerk defend everything 'scientists' do or claim.

It truly boggles the mind; it's like they'd rather die than let a Fed.Reserve-grantwhore economist shill pull one over them, but hey, if you're a PhD from an Ivy League school whose 80% of their largest block grants fall under the auspices of DoD/DARPA and now DHS, it's like, 'nope, I see nozing!'

Had I been on the panel, I'd bluntly challenge Molyneux with: 'Hey Stef, do you not have faith that your wife WON'T cheat on you?' If he answers, I don't need faith, she's proven herself and I trust her because she now has credibility with me.' Then I'd rebut with, 'So Stefan, in your mind, the variable of human action precludes a previously considered honest 'credible' person whom you've learned to trust, cannot by freewill, do something antithetical to what you 'believe' her to be, ever?'

Case closed. lol.

That said, back to Larken, I personally cannot wait to see Nuremberg 2.0 commence; perhaps THE last use of the 'justice' system as we know it... hopefully.o)

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul