Pablo Wolfe

October 15 at 9:41pm · 

"I do not agree that secretly flicking a switch once a year constitutes “making your voice heard”. Nor do I think that an annual trip to a voting booth is a criterion for whether one can complain or not. My right to free speech is not contingent upon anyone else, no matter how many of them there are, whether they were elected to some office or however much they stamp their feet."

Why I Won’t Vote This Year –

I rarely tell people that I don’t believe in voting. Participation in the body politic is widely considered to be both a privilege and an imperative to the enlightened urban citizen. To choose otherwise is quite literally heresy – and heretics by and...


Pablo Wolfe I see no reason to believe that tyranncide or proportional self defense (even unto armed resistance) is of necessity indecent or out of order. Obviously it could be terribly barbaric, but anywhere near as barbaric as the system it would seek to surmount? Not likely. 

However I do perceive voting as totally uncivilized behavior.

As for voting in anarchist politicos, I cannot imagine a more demonstrably failed pursuit. Voting is absolutely the worst thing an anarchist can do if he actually wants to see the state wither away by non-violent means. People must simply refuse to go along with the state in mass. That would be the only effectual means of bloodless liberty. But, even then, as the state begins to lose it's stranglehold, it will lash out at the non compliant through violence. Those under attack would certainly be justified in protecting their families and communities from positive law terrorists.

You will not be receiving my vote Kevin.

Let's Make a Deal

I have a very simple deal for you ... and you probably won't take it.



October 16 at 12:34pm · Edited · Like

Kevin Craig I'm not getting something. You're OK with assassinating a person created in the Image of God, but voting is "uncivilized?"

You say voting for an anarchist who will work to dismantle the State is "demonstrably failed." When was this demonstration? When
 has anyone ever voted for an anarchist? When has an anarchist been elected? When did the elected anarchist "fail?"

Suppose the people of North Korea "simply refuse to go along with the State in mass." Is Kim Jong-un going to pack up and go home? When you say "refuse to go along with the State," what do you mean? Stand by passively while the state confiscates your property? That would be bloodless, but not as effective as voting for anarchists. When you speak of "protecting their families" from the State, do you mean "locking their doors," or murdering the confiscators? I think your version of "protecting" means massive bloodshed and loss of life, and that's less moral than voting for anarchists.

October 16 at 12:25pm · Like

Pablo Wolfe 1. Yes, if assassinating that spiritually compromised person made in the image of God will result in saving the lives of many also created in that image.

2. Well, for one thing, elections are decided in advance of voting by the plutocrats who comprom
ise every component of the electoral process. Also Ron Paul is a defacto anarchist since his stated intention was reducing the government to a virtual suggestion bureau. He never had a chance of winning at any time. Finally, even if elected the system will not allow for a congressman or senator making any lasting, radical changes to the system (again see Ron Paul), which is precisely how Hamilton and his stooges planned it. The system is set up to grow government even when a few loose cannon libertarians get elected. 

3. What I mean is that if even 70% of Americans simply stopped playing in to the system, so far as they could without endangering their family, the system would crumble. The State is reliant on the direct and passionate participation of a confused mass of tax cows/slaves. That machine will break down without grease on the wheels. 

4. Your last question is silly. Voting for anarchists in utterly ineffectual and, to be perfectly blunt, delusional. Killing someone who is sticking a machine gun in your familes face, willing to gun you down for refusing to be rapined (those who you have chosen to call "confiscators) is not murder. Plain and simple. Self defense is a natural right and the exercise thereof can only be considered barbaric by childish idealists.

October 16 at 12:50pm · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe I guess you missed that part where Christ said that had that not been His plan and mission (to die by torture for the propitiation of human sin) that his followers would have fought to resist His capture. Notice He does not mention this as though his followers would have been wicked in having resisted. 

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

This obviously implies that were there a just ruler in the world armed defense would have been justified and seemingly even virtuous.

October 16 at 1:09pm · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe Moreover, am I to look at Davids decapitation of Goliath as an act of Barbarism as well?

October 16 at 1:03pm · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe Yes, peace is always preferable to war. But again, when the state begins to lose its grip it will not act peaceably. At that point I have every natural right to create a palladium for the innocent. If that consists of unfortunate occasions of violence then so be it. May God have mercy on those who would seek to harm my family and community after I have dispatched them thus.

October 16 at 1:21pm · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe Sorry Kevin, not gonna vote now or ever again. That ship has sailed, thanks be to God.

October 16 at 1:40pm · Like

Pablo Wolfe And if someone attempts to harm someone I love I will act accordingly (resist in proportion to the assailants escalation).

October 16 at 1:44pm · Like

Kevin Craig • I don't know what you mean by "act accordingly." I think Jesus says we are not to act like the world.
• I don't know what you mean by "resist." 
Matthew 5:39

. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall 
. smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
• I don't know what you mean by "in proportion." Sounds like "eye for eye."
. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, 
. and a tooth for a tooth:
. 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:

Vengeance Belongs to God, Not to Man -- KEVIN CRAIG - "Liberty Under God" Beginning in...

Kevin Craig is a Christian Anarchist campaigning for *Liberty Under God* in the race for U.S. Congress in Missouri's 7th District.


October 16 at 4:03pm · Like · Remove Preview

Kevin Craig In addition to saying His disciples should walk naked through the streets of Jerusalem with swords, Christ also said to poke out your eye. He meant neither literally.
I don't know a single real person who believes that when evil occurs, one should "lay down in the mud and watch." At the very least we should "witness," a word the KJV uses to translate the Greek word from which we get the English word "martyr."
Everybody believes evil should be obstructed. Pacifists will not intentionally kill.

Does Jesus Command His Followers to Take Up a Sword?

The Lord Jesus Christ gave very clear instruction to...


October 17 at 12:22am · Like · Remove Preview

Pablo Wolfe You are avoiding. I asked what the world as you know it would be had not Christendom halted the Muslim subjugation of western europe. The fact is, the world as you know it would not exist. You would be under Sharia as we speak. More than likely you would be a muslim (defacto satanist) in the bargain.

October 18 at 11:36am · Like

Pablo Wolfe Again, I suggest that you thank God every day that he imbued those holy warriors with spine enough to resist those who beheaded, enslaved and raped their way through Byzantium and Spain. Saladin had every intention of wiping out Christianity and was only brought to heel by Christian warriors.

October 18 at 11:42am · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe disputatious
[ ˌdispyo͝oˈtāSHəs ] 

adjective: disputatious
fond of or causing heated arguments:

October 18 at 11:45am · Like

Kevin Craig Yes, the world as we know it would not exist if we followed in Christ's steps (1 Peter 2:21).

You assume that God cannot change the hearts of Muslims, and that we must kill them. I assume that if we obey God, He will convert Muslims and we will all li
ve a decentralized pacifist life: "everyone dwelling securely under his own vine and fig tree." Micah 4:1-7

"Under sharia law?" Christians did not resort to lethal self-defense against their Roman persecutors, but we are not under Roman law today. Rome was crushed by the Rock, who commanded His followers to be pacifists. Muslims will be converted when the West disarms, beating "swords into plowshares," transforming Marines into missionaries.

Luke 6
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

"The West" took over half of everything you earned to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan to rubble. The cost: $4-6 TRILLION. Imagine taking just ONE Trillion dollars, and sending a gospel brochure and a check for $1,000 to every man, woman and child in the Muslim world -- all one Billion of them. How many might convert? How many would call the U.S. "The Great Satan" if we gave them a year's wages? But instead of giving, as Christ commanded, we built bombs. We melted the flesh off their bones with White Phosphorus.

I hate the secular, militarized West.

The Peaceful Vision of Vine & Fig Tree

      So wrote philosopher Richard Weaver.      Why is there such brokenness in the world? Why the intense conflict? Global war; border disputes; a nation divided over race, wealth, status; bickering with neighbors; domestic abuse.      External actions -- from U.N. policies to family relations -- s…


October 18 at 12:36pm · Like · Remove Preview

Pablo Wolfe In any case, it seems that you're saying that if you see a man running toward a woman with butcher knife shouting "I am going to kill and rape you," that you would remain inert. Well I think that abominable. I appreciate your abhorrence for preemptive warfare and needless intrigues. I cannot agree with you on defending the innocent. If I can prevent a human being savaged I will proceed thus. Nothing you have presented comes even close (given the many hermeneutical paradoxes) to agitating further investigation or reexamination. There is no ingress in Islam for sweeping conversion inside its caliphates. The inability of Christians to attain a lasting palladium or legislative countervail in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc, without being constantly on their guard against immolation, rape and murder provides for this estimation manifestly.

October 18 at 1:18pm · Edited · Like

Kevin Craig "butcher knife" -- "remain inert"
You clearly did not read my rebuttal to Rhodes.
We have a duty to protect innocent life, but also the life of the attacker.

October 18 at 2:06pm · Edited · Like

Pablo Wolfe To think that some will be stopped from rape and murder simply by hearing the gospel is borderline insane. So in the end you are doing exactly as I have described in not taking physical and proportional action against a would be killer or rapist.

October 19 at 1:14pm · Edited · Like

Kevin Craig You're violating the Ninth Commandment by unfairly representing my position. Each time you violate this command you precede it with the word "simply." There are lots of practical things to do to prevent violence besides violate the command "Thou shalt not kill." Read Yoder's book "What Would You Do?" The world is full of examples of murders and rapes that have been prevented by the Word without using the sword. Happens every day.

October 19 at 3:10pm · Like

Pablo Wolfe I am not bearing false witness by accurately describing your position on the matter at hand. By my estimation that is what I have done. Of course their are practical things one can do prior to physical insinuation or altercation when dealing with a person whose free will is answerable to the formal laws of reason and the basic tenets of mercy. But when all those attempts fall short and all forebearence proves ineffectual (see for example the dialogue between Constantine XI and Mehmed II prior to the sacking of Constantinople as just one in a million examples) what then? standing by as innocents are put to the sword or made to relieve the sexual tensions of entire armies? Again (and this will be the last post on this thread) you are advised to thank God every time you lay your head on that pillow at night that there were thousands of Christians willing to die to protect our kindred from being put under muhammadan yoke and made to genuflect in the unholy shadows of a million converted mosques. I will not vote for you and I will intervene when the innocent are set upon by the blood thirsty. Pray for me a sinner.

10 hrs · Edited · Like