Wednesday, May 3, 2017

The Devil’s Pope

It’s been a while since I have commented on anything regarding the current pope.  That ends today!

Those Rotten Libertarians

The pope recently offered a critique, based on numerous strawmen, of libertarianism.  Several people have rightly offered a response.  The few that I have read have been respectful, attempting a rational and reasoned dialogue with the pope on this topic.

Well, this will not be of that type.  I will not bother with a point by point rebuttal; others have done that all too well.  My approach will be different – as you might have surmised, given the title of this post.

Libertarianism = The Non-aggression Principal

The pope condemns libertarianism; libertarianism has at its root the non-aggression principle.

So, what is the non-aggression principle?  From Ayn Rand, we read: “So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate — do you hear me? No man may start — the use of physical force against others.”

From Murray Rothbard: “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.”

It is safe to say, this statement is about as Christian as it gets; it certainly belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of words for a Christian to live by.

The Pope’s Creed

The pope read many books given to him by his boss at Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires, where he worked.

The “boss” to whom Pope Francis referred is Esther Ballestrino de Careaga. He has described her as a “Paraguayan woman” and a “fervent communist.” He considers her one of his most important mentors. “I owe a huge amount to that great woman,” he has said, saying that she “taught me so much about politics.”

Learning about communism, he said, “through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.”

The social aspect of communism = the social doctrine of the Church.  Let that sink in.

The pope has stated:  “The Marxist ideology is wrong.”  Yet he frequently exhorts action through government and political leaders toward redistributive ends.  If this isn’t Marxism, it is a close cousin.  Call it democratic communism.  Yes, some will find that repetitive.

It is safe to say – especially considering its short time on earth – that communism has been the most destructive political philosophy that the world has ever known; the devil’s Mt. Rushmore is still waiting for three other nominees.

Judgement Day

Let’s test these two political theories – libertarianism and (democratic) communism – out against the Bible.  Let’s look at the relevant commandments of the well-known ten…well, before we get to the ten, consider how God introduces himself:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Communism = slavery = contrary to God’s work; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of slavery.

You shall not murder.

Communism = good for at least 100 million deaths in the one century it was tried; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of murder.

You shall not steal.

Communism = a political philosophy based in its entirety on theft – from each according to his ability, to each according to his need; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of stealing.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Communism = coveting everything of anyone who has something more than you have; the NAP = pretty much the opposite.

But That was Old Testament Stuff

Well…yeah.  But God is unchanging, and a sin remains a sin.  So can good come from breaking God’s commandments?  What does Paul say about this?

Romans 3: 5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Nowhere did Jesus teach to initiate force or in any way use the Roman government to do good – to do evil in order to “bring out God’s righteousness more clearly….”  To do good is the work of the Church, the body of Christ.  It is a calling; it isn’t to be achieved at the end of a gun.

The pope should do his job and lead Catholic Christians toward this calling.  He should do it as Christ did it, without introducing the initiation of force.


No pope of Christ = the devil’s pope.


  1. The Catholic church is falling to worldliness (so are almost of the others).

    People have forgotten, or misunderstood, the mission of Jesus Christ, something that was understood by Christians for almost 2000 years until this understanding became politically incorrect.

    The mission of Jesus Christ was the struggle against pharisaism. Now, which churches make defeating pharisaism their priority? Very few indeed, and no mainstream churches.

    1. "We believe on this earth in Adolf Hitler alone! We believe in National Socialism as the creed which is the sole source of grace! We believe that Almighty God has sent us Adolf Hitler so that he may rid Germany of the hypocrites and Pharisees." - Robert Ley, Nazi Politician (1941)

  2. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.--John 3:17

    And he battled legalism and corrupt hypocrites along the way of colours, and the thieves in God's house. The main mission is salvation for which cause he said "I will make you fishers of men" and "Go ye into all the world and make disciples".

    "That all men might be saved".

    The Pharisees and the pagans will come out of the woodwork of the world's kingdoms against genuine Bible believers because we worship a higher power than them.

  3. Thus spake Pope Platitude I

  4. The NAP is at the very heart of Jesus'commandment to love thy neighbor as you love yourself i.e. The Golden/Silver Rule.

    This is why I say that even though I am an atheist I am more Christian than many who claim to be followers of Jesus because I strictly follow the NAP while they do not.

    1. I have experienced this quite often with atheists; you are often a great deal more gracious -- or at least civilized -- than my fellow Christians who start dropping F-bombs and *ad hominem* at the drop of a hat. This only goes to prove Christ's teaching that not all who say they are His, actually are.

  5. Jesus said to the dude who did everything right, now sell everything and give it to the poor, and follow me. That is idealistic for people to serve god in monasteries like they did in early Christianity. Today the Vatican is so wealthy and uses a Rothschild bankster to hide all their money hanky panky?

    This communist Pope is a radical globalist that needs to be fired.

  6. Then there’s the truth about the Catholic Church. The Christian doctrine of original sin is collectivist. The God of the Bible authorized lots of barbarism and land theft. The verses of Romans 13: 1-7 are as pro state and submit to the rulers as there can be. The Catholic Church either was the state or an authoritarian part of states in numerous places for much of Christian history, supporting slavery and often waging holy wars. It’s never been about the NAP, far from it.

    1. Jack

      Regarding God, well…being God I guess He can do what He wants.

      Regarding Romans, you have offered an incorrect interpretation.

      Regarding the Catholic Church, like every church and every human institution, it is made up of…humans…with all of the faults inherent in the species.

      God Bless You


    2. BM,
      "Regarding God, well…being God I guess He can do what He wants."
      That’s why principle libertarians are usually non-religious.

      "Regarding Romans, you have offered an incorrect interpretation."

      Not at all, but not expecting you to ever recognize and admit it:

      Romans 13 King James Version (KJV)
      1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
      2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
      3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
      4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
      a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
      5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
      6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
      7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

      1 Peter 2:13-17 (KJV) even clearer,

      13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

      14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

      15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

      16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

      17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

    3. "That’s why principle libertarians are usually non-religious."

      And that's why it is unimportant to me. What I don't get is why so-called principled libertarians get so pissed off about other libertarians who are religious; it bothers them so deeply that I suspect they are running from something.

      As to your verses, I can list a few dozen myself that must be ignored if you take a simple reading of the ones you cite.

      For this and other reasons, I have decided some time ago that I will leave theology to others, on a different website. I don't engage in debate on these matters.

    4. I used to agree Jack, but

      We can find in the Book of Job that God does things that do truly confound us, that make us wonder why. Its not meet for us to know now, but farther along the answers why(whether in this life or the next).
      The land that I also previously thought was "stolen" by the Jews was given to them, because the people who lived there (Philistines, Canaanites, etc.) had broken the NAP, first w God, then with the Jews, as they wandered forty years as literal refugees under attack from all sides and tribes around them. So God helped his people, and destroyed their enemies in the NAP.
      As for the exerpts from Paul and Peter, back then statesdid not exist as bureaus of bourgoisie, but mostly as kingdoms and fiefdoms (although the Roman empire became a model for this kind of state). These would have been mostly administrated as BM has posited before on the German middle ages, in that Law which was old, and good. They kept the peace through publicly sanctioned (as in by the people, truly) means, and this was ordained by God. We can see through Kings Herod, Saul, and Mannassas that God overthrows those leaders of unrighteousness, and therefore ordains leaders to rise up and fall based on the people's will, be it good or bad. They will recieve the kingship that they deserve.
      Here in America over the last century we've traded in our morals, rights, and liberties for modernity, humanitarianism (whatever that means), and totalitarianism. We deserve the leaders we have, they are ordained by God for now in a way, because we let Satan take over. We are delivered unto our sins for a meet recompense.
      I suggest that our rulers live not under God's law, though they be ordained in a manner of speaking because His Will has allowed it... for now.

      Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath:for where no law is, there is no transgression.

      We live under mafia cartel corporate fascist common son-of-a-bitch rulers, who hold no law. They have made a lawless land where one cannot transgress God if one were to transgress the ruler.
      Blind obedience to the state is not supported by the Word; however, states legitimate their rule utilizing God's word + propaganda.

    5. BM,
      "And that's why it is unimportant to me. What I don't get is why so-called principled libertarians get so pissed off about other libertarians who are religious; it bothers them so deeply that I suspect they are running from something."

      You’re delusional. I merely and briefly countered your thesis and assertions, and wouldn’t have done so here, in what you’d prefer to be your amen corner, if your Paleo comrade Lew Rockwell who posted your article allowed reader comments.

      "As to your verses, I can list a few dozen myself that must be ignored if you take a simple reading of the ones you cite."

      The ones I posted reflect the imperial/state/Church relationship for most of the last 2000 years, starting in the 4th century. Cherry picked Bible verses suggesting differently change none of that. Further, what became and is the distinguishing doctrine of the Christian Church, the Trinity, has nothing to with liberty.

      "For this and other reasons, I have decided some time ago that I will leave theology to others, on a different website. I don't engage in debate on these matters."
      Your article contains theological assertions about Christianity.

    6. What "amen corner"? I have allowed your comments; are you a member of the choir? No, I didn't think so.

      Calm down, Jack. Wait until the morning - if what I wrote here upsets you so, you will really have some reason to get spun up in the morning.

      So, save your strength.

  7. Was not Ron Paul booed in presidential debate when he proposed a foreign policy that followed the Prince Of Peace admonishment to treat others as we would have others treat us?

    1. Yes, and - as I recall - in the Bible belt of North (or South) Carolina.

      Paul has said, two arguments never work in congress: the moral, and the Constitutional. These arguments also don't seem to work outside of congress.

    2. That was during the embarrassing debate within my home state of South Carolina, after which I commented that "as a political enthusiast, I can only marvel at a scenario wherein a bible-belt state cheers death, boos the Golden Rule, then overwhelmingly votes for an adulterer who left office under ethics violations".

      Ticked my God-fearing neighbors off to no end. I need to find a more libertarian section of the South to live in.

    3. You will find a small pocket in Auburn, Alabama.

    4. Lol, I've thought about it, but my wife may get jealous. Then again, maybe she'd enjoy the respite. :)

    5. Carpetbaggers changed morals and philosophy at the point of a gun in these Carolinas.

  8. I posit that when the pope says "libertarian", he does not mean the same thing as when Bionic Mosquito says the same word. The pope's straw men are the basis for my theory. I also smiled at the part where he criticized the "financial field". I'd say "egoism, greed, materialism and unfair competition" is a decent summary of the world banking system. It is the source of the wealth inequality that the pope decries.

    1. You may be quite correct regarding his definition vs. mine. Yet, many will read it assuming my definition, and then libertarians (of my definition) only lose.

      As to the underlying complaint about the "financial field," it is very clear that many people see the same problems in the world system.

      The issue, or debate, is about the "cure." The pope's approach, it seems to me, will only lead to misery.

  9. A guy named Montini, who called himself Pope Paul VI, was a dedicated Satanist and all the false Popes since have followed his lead.