Category Archives: Racism

Heroism, Hope, Hypocrites, Imbeciles In Large Numbers, Justice, Racism, Revolution

Not PC: FREE RADICAL #75 – The Right of Revolution: In Praise of Commodore Frank Bainimarama. by Tim Wikiriwhi

Friday 27 November 2015 Tim 4 Comments

‘Not PC’ is New Zealand Libertarian and devout Objectivist Peter Cresswell’s blog.
Pete was Editor of Lindsay Perigo’s ‘Free Radical magazine’.
Below is an article I wrote about the Race crisis in Fiji.
I am putting it on my blog for reference purposes, yet am grateful to PC for having it on his blog too, and a link to Not PC can be found in our Blogroll sidebar.
🙂

Subsequent history has vindicated my position.

g speight
George Speight’s Racist revolution in Fiji.

The Right of Revolution: In Praise of Commodore Frank Bainimarama.
by Tim Wikiriwhi

The latest coup in Fiji by Commodore Frank Bainimarama has highlighted for me the corruption of so-called “indigenous rights,” a recipe for division which is pedalled around the globe by the corrupt socialists of the UN. Four coups in twenty years is hardly a good look, but the instability is itself a product of racist laws that makes instability inevitable.

Bainimarama’s coup is the complete opposite of the previous three coups, each of which attempted to establish absolutely the UN’s apartheid agenda for indigenous rights. Whereas Rabuka and Speight were acting to cement the racist laws that raised indigenous Fijians over other Fijians, Bainimarama is a defender of the principle of equality.

Bainimarama said he was compelled to act against the government because corruption had flourished under Qarase, whom he himself appointed after the 2000 coup, and because of proposed laws that would grant pardons to plotters in a 2000 coup and hand lucrative land rights to indigenous Fijians at the expense of the large ethnic Indian minority.

“Qarase betrayed our trust when he went back to team up with the very people who caused the political instability of 2000,” Bainimarama said. The new electoral system he pledged to implement would ensure that all votes cast were equal, and the present race-based election system abolished. This requires indigenous Fijians to vote for Fijian candidates, ethnic Indians for Indian candidates, and others for a third group of candidates. “We want to rid the constitution of provisions that facilitate and exacerbate the politics of race”, Bainimarama confirmed at the outset.

In seeking to put a permanent end to the racist Fijian electoral system and to permanently abolish laws that grant favouritism to indigenous racists, he is in my estimation worthy of praise and support reserved for the greatest benefactors of mankind.

Apathy and submission to injustice via political delusions

A basic principle of justice is that all law should be colour-blind; that everyone, regardless of race, should be equal before the law. We here in New Zealand have however grown soft on inequality. That this is true can not only be shown by the complete lack of protest against the blatant apartheid of the Waitangi Tribunal, of the many, many race-based policies still on the books in New Zealand.

This is an indictment against ourselves and our country, and a measure of our complacency and foolishness. So many people in so many places around the globe have been deceived into thinking that “the rule of democracy” is synonymous with “the rule of law”; that democracy is a safeguard of freedom. It is nothing of the sort.

Democracy is simply a counting of heads regardless of content. True liberty exists only when the inalienable rights of all individuals, regardless of race or colour, are put beyond the vote. Belief in the ‘democracy fallacy’ is so prevalent however that when a democracy is overthrown, even a racist democracy such as Fiji’s undeniably was, many immediately say that the perpetrators are dangerous criminals!

The reality is that democracy can be as unjust as an absolute monarchy, and it is just as immoral for a parliament to grant legal favouritism upon the grounds of race as it is for a king to do so, no matter how many people might vote for it!

The rule of law means the rule of principles of justice especially of the principle of equality before the law – equality for all, regardless of race! The democratic “mandate of the majority” is a valid way of choosing who should be in government, but not a valid way of justifying how they govern, or what laws they pass, nor an automatic justification of any law proposed by a democratic Parliament! Democracy is not synonymous with freedom.

Totalitarian democrats dread the spread of Bainimarama’s ideals

What the Clark regime are scared of is this: the simple realisation that a racist democracy not unlike the one they themselves are running has been overthrown, and overthrown in the name of overturning that entrenched and legalised racism. They can do nothing else but condemn Bainimarama!

Fiji_Voreqe_Bainimarama_FT_420
Strong man and Savior of Fiji, the enlightened. Then Commander and Chief of the Fijian Armed forces, Frank Bainimarama.

The right of revolution

Let me state the fact that the principle of equality is no light or transient cause. What motivates me to support Bainimarama is exactly the same principle as motivated the American Declaration of Independence.

We must all be aware of the maxim of Edmund Burke: “All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” If you are in a position of power to stop a great injustice, but do not exercise that power, does your inaction not amount to complicity? Any man of virtue in Bainimarama’s position would be obliged to make the same choice: That is either do nothing and allow the evil of apartheid injustice to go unchecked, or to act and put an end to it!

According to Lockeian principles, it is not unjust to overthrow a tyrant. Any good man has the right to stop the enemies of mankind by the law of nature, just as they have the right to kill any savage beast. We have the natural right to defend our lives and property. It is not a crime but a righteous necessity to overthrow a corrupt government.

The limits of political power and the supremacy of justice

While many people understand that the principle of equality before the law means you cannot have one law for blacks or browns and another for whites, few people appreciate the fullness of its limiting power over government whatsoever its form. This same principle guarantees absolute equal freedom for all: It means a president, a king, or an indigenous native has no more rights than the lowliest citizen or the most recent immigrant.

Equality before the law means you cannot have a state religion. It means you cannot have an official culture. It means you cannot have one law for the rich and another for the poor. It means you cannot grant any favouritism whatsoever!

The tyranny of the mob under demagogues

How many people really want true equality? Not many! Most would rather have some say over their neighbour’s rights and liberties than enjoy their own – they would rather have an absolute, unlimited democracy – one in which nothing has been put beyond the vote – if it allows them to somehow bully their neighbour, or to gain preference for their own. There are plenty of demagogues willing to crush minorities and to ride the waves of bigotry into power, and plenty of people around the world ready to applaud the bigots.

The proper constitutional context of the conventions of democracy

The power of voting is more critical when the government has tyrannical powers.

When government is kept in check by a just libertarian constitution – when the government has been limited to protecting the rights of the individual, and the elected government is barred from totalitarianism or unlimited majority rule – then the power to vote away the rights and liberties of minorities is of much less consequence (and remember that the smallest minority is the individual, whose rights a just government is sworn to uphold).

In such a system, what the US Founding Fathers described as a constitutional republic, no matter what religion or culture is in the majority or who is voted into office, the government cannot pass discriminatory laws nor usurp greater powers at the expense of the rights and liberties of the population.

The fact that nations like Fiji and New Zealand don’t have such constitutional restraints means that the right to vote is itself looked upon as the primary safeguard against corruption, and the notion of taking away an elected government by force sends dread trough the Mobocracy — yet that liberation will be met with jubilation by the liberated minorities who have borne the brunt of democratic injustice.

The limits of representative government and the power of consent

It must be remembered that the right to vote is not a license to create a tyranny of the mob. The right to vote in a representative government is subordinate to the principles of justice. The mandate of the majority can never legitimately override the principle of equality before the Law. The principle of the consent of the governed is itself subordinate to the principle of equality before the law.

The principle of equality is the only condition of justice whereby everyone can be justly expected to grant consent, so this principle becomes an absolute justification for any form of government that is constitutionally founded upon it. Those who refuse to consent to equality and instead desire an unjust form of rule, whether they represent either a majority or minority, can rightfully be ignored and even suppressed (meaning: they halted from unjust revolution):

It is just to impose equality upon an unwilling/barbarous population by force to keep their prejudice in check.
It is just to crush socialist uprisings.
It is just to overthrow racist democracies.
It is just to hunt down religious terror groups who seek religious tyranny.
It is just to go to war to liberate a slave pen, and to occupy foreign lands wherein the threat of ideological evil dwells.

The justice of all these things hinges on the principle of equality. Equality before the law is the standard by which to judge the validity of all law and government.

This ultimate truth is founded upon our God-given equal rights, rights that exist as inalienable absolutes irrespective of laws and governments. Fiji is technically in a state of civil war, and has been since it instituted racist government long ago, at which point it went to war against those citizens whose rights it overthrew. In overturning a racist government and in suppressing racist mob uprisings, I submit that Bainimarama is acting under this principle of justice. He must take care how he goes about this difficult task.

The current confrontation with the Great Council of Chiefs was inevitable, since it was this corrupt political body that was behind the Rabuka and Speight coups, and behind the apartheid system of favouritism for indigenous Fijians. He must divest these tribal chiefs of their corrupt powers that perverted the democracy of Fiji into an apartheid system. The best thing the chiefs can do is support a new constitution in which all Fijians, regardless of race, are recognised as being equal before the law.

The responsibility for government rests with the people

“Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” This is the great fear of any nation, and no doubt is a reason many fear the power of Bainimarama. I wonder why these same fearful souls are not leading a revolution against Helen Clark and Her Own Absolute Democracy!

How much evil will these frightened souls suffer before they rise up against her? Even in Western civilisations, millions are dying each year as a direct result of socialism, yet no one acts against it because democracy has turned them into spineless slaves. Ultimately absolute tyrants everywhere prosper because the population is too scared to overthrow them. They prefer the safety of slavery to the risk of dying for freedom. Mugabe will continue to tyrannise Zimbabweans until the people say enough is enough. Putin will continue to suppress Russian protest until the people say enough is enough. Their tyranny will continue until those sufficiently brave and staunch enough for freedom run into the seat of power and oust these tyrants!

The limits of tyrants are set by the resistance of their citizens. All would-be tyrants must fear the wrath of freedom-loving people! Dictatorships can only stand where the people choose submission over revolution.
The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance.

Who ought to engage in such revolution? Every enlightened individual who refuses to submit to tyranny. New Zealanders need to sort out their own apartheid systems of state before they tell Commodore Bainimarama to surrender to the racists of Fiji!

Tim Wikiriwhi is a Hamilton engineer, and a self-described Independent Libertarian.

Bain in New Deli
Benefactor of Fiji… Commodore Frank Bainimarama seen here visiting New Deli.

Ayn Rand, Racism

I love Racism

Monday 19 January 2015 Richard Leave a comment

I love Ayn Rand’s essay, Racism. Here are some excerpts.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control… Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stockfarm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another)—the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another)—the parents who search genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law—the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history—all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly emerging nations.”

The theory that holds “good blood” or “bad blood” as a moral-intellectual criterion, can lead to nothing but torrents of blood in practice. Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals.

Modern racists attempt to prove the superiority or inferiority of a given race by the historical achievements of some of its members. The frequent historical spectacle of a great innovator who, in his lifetime, is jeered, denounced, obstructed, persecuted by his countrymen, and then, a few years after his death, is enshrined in a national monument and hailed as a proof of the greatness of the German (or French or Italian or Cambodian) race—is as revolting a spectacle of collectivist expropriation, perpetrated by racists, as any expropriation of material wealth perpetrated by communists.

Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements—and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

Even if it were proved—which it is not—that the incidence of men of potentially superior brain power is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one’s judgment of him. A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as an inferior because his race has “produced” some brutes—or the claim of a German brute to the status of a superior because his race has “produced” Goethe, Schiller and Brahms.

These are not two different claims, of course, but two applications of the same basic premise. The question of whether one alleges the superiority or the inferiority of any given race is irrelevant; racism has only one psychological root: the racist’s sense of his own inferiority.

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

To ascribe one’s virtues to one’s racial origin, is to confess that one has no knowledge of the process by which virtues are acquired and, most often, that one has failed to acquire them. The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a “tribal self-esteem” by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe. Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

Historically, racism has always risen or fallen with the rise or fall of collectivism. Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to “society,” to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

Racism was first published in the September 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. Click here to read the essay in its entirety.

Apartheid, Hell, National Party, Peter Dunne, Racism, Unicorns, Vote 2014

Hikois from hell

Saturday 23 August 2014 Richard 6 Comments

It’s National Party policy to abolish the Maori seats but John Key says not on his watch.

Dropping Maori seats would mean ‘hikois from hell’

Abolishing the Maori seats would rip the country apart and attract “hikois from hell”, John Key said.

Speaking to the Herald last week before the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, the Prime Minister said that while it remained National Party policy to abolish the seats, even if he had enough numbers to do so, he would abolish them only with the agreement of Maori.

“It would divide the nation,” he told the Herald’s Hot Seat series . “Despite the fact that a lot of people say they don’t like it and they were there for a particular reason, actually it would be an incredibly divisive thing to do to New Zealand and New Zealanders.”

“Do you really want to rip a country apart? I’ll tell you what would happen – hikois from hell.”

Whether you were on the Maori roll or the general roll everyone got two votes.

While abolishing the seats has been long-standing policy for National, Act and United Future policy, the Maori Party’s confidence and supply agreement with National saw it parked as an active issue. But even if the Maori Party were not in the next Parliament, Mr Key has in effect protected them.

Political party 1law4all isn’t happy. On Facebook they posted

Post by 1law4all.

But I agree with John Key.

Having a Maori electoral roll as well as a general electoral roll is not, in itself, racist. It is merely arbitrary. Everyone gets two votes, regardless of which roll they’re on.

What’s racist about the Maori roll is that only Maori get to choose whether to be on it or to be on the general roll. If we opened up the Maori roll to non-Maori, there’d be no racism.

And no problem. Because we have to divide the country up into electorates somehow. (Or do we?!) Dividing the country up geographically is arbitrary. We might just as well divide the country up according to the age of the voters. It would be instructive to do so. Who would win the 20-year-old’s seat? Who would win the 60-year-old’s seat? Now we’re talking ageism, instead of racism!

But isn’t our current system geographicalist? I’d love to be enrolled in the Ohariu electorate so that I could vote for someone other than Peter Dunne. But I can’t. I’m stuck with Mana. (It’s like school zoning, I’m against it.)

Key’s more important point is that abolishing the Maori seats today would lead to “hikois from hell”. That’s a euphemism for blood on the streets. Do we really want to trade a harmless anachronism for violent civil unrest?

Retaining the Maori seats is the small price we pay for keeping a lid on the simmering resentment of some Maori towards the descendants of the colonials whom they believe inflicted a holocaust on their ancestors leaving them disadvantaged to this day.

Retaining the Maori seats is a good social insurance policy. Much like retaining the dole. The dole costs [from memory, I might come back and edit this figure] $18,000 per year per beneficiary. Incarceration costs [again, this figure is from memory] $90,000 per year per inmate. If we abolished the dole, there’d be a crime ~~wave~~ tsunami as an army of unemployed, suddenly bereft of income, found thieving (and worse) ways to make ends meet. Kiwis, beneficiary and non-beneficiary alike, would suffer. So let’s not abolish the dole, mmmkay?

Let’s be clear. The productive and colour blind are being held to ransom. In paying the dole and retaining the Maori seats, we are complicit in perpetuating unjust systems of social welfare and racist democracy. But what choices do we have?

Remember, too, that people’s welfare is a consideration that must temper considerations of justice. Okay, now I look forward to my co-bloggers dumping on me from a great height. See the comments section below.

Christian Libertarianism, Liberate your Mind!, Racism, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi, Vote Wikiriwhi!

The New Zealand War of the 1860s was not a ‘Land war’… It was a Sovereignty War.

Wednesday 2 April 2014 Tim Leave a comment

moaa

Watch *this Video*

For New Zealand….It is one of the greatest Political Lies of our Day…
The lie that the 1860s War was a Land war…. just another example of British Imperial Greed.
The Truth is that it was a Sovereignty War!
A Sovereignty which Britain was very hesitant to adopt.

The War was an armed rebellion led by Tainui against the Sovereignty of The Queen of England.
They set up their own *King!*
And that is why Nagpuhi and Te Arawa Fought with The British.
They Preferred an English Woman to be their Queen rather than a Tainui Man.
The Rebellion was an act of aggression by Rebels who intended to drive the Pakeha into the Sea…. and they expected it to be as Easy as ‘Cutting Grass’.
The Confiscations happened *After* this murderous Breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, as UTU for their Heinous Crimes.
Ie The Confiscations were *an enforcement of the treaty*.
Neither is it true to say These confiscations…. or British Colonisation was responsible for the impoverishment of Tainui Maori…. They were impoverished by their ongoing tribalism.
In fact the conviscations…. by discouraging a repeat of the rebellion ….Re-established peace which was… the foundation for future peace and Prosperity for all!

taitusi
^^^This is the truth about British colonisation in New Zealand!

Ngaa haka group
^^^Or do you think this is better???
Dont get me wrong…. I’m not saying Maori should be ashamed of their past, or should not enjoy what is best in their unique culture…. but that it is very dangerous to be trapped into thinking you must absolutely identify yourself by such archaic visions.
To do so is a trap…. it is to live in the past and to worship a false ideal.
And this false Ideal is trapping many Maori in a lie.

timmm

^^^ This is Me! A descendant of Te Arawa and Ngapuhi….. A Proud Independent, self reliant Maori who does not expect any ‘Special treatment’ because of my race.
I am an Engineer!
Not a Maori engineer…. not a Warrior.
I am a self reliant independent individual who only seeks my own freedom and equality before the Law.
My own Culture is my own business.

Please don’t mistake my ‘Self promotion’ as Vanity.
I am simply attempting to shine a light down a path I sincerely believe is in the best interest of Maori.
A path denied by the ‘Treaty Grievers’…. I declare that Maori poverty, ill health and crime cannot be rightly blamed upon British colonisation, nor is the solution to be found in Racist legislations which assume Maori need special treatment.
The opposite is true.
British colonisation was a great Boon, a great liberation from stone age superstitions, poverty, slavery, and tribal war!
And that the way forward is to absolutely forsake the grievers/ victim-ism mentality fostered by the Racist radicals…. and to embrace Freedom and equality before the Law…. and to *Work hard…. study Hard…. and embrace ethics of Self responsibility in the pursuit of our own happiness.
This is where Enlightenment and true self empowerment lies.
You can escape tribalism, yet still enjoy and ‘honour’ your roots.

I implore Maori to wake up the all the Machiavellian Racist lies they are being fed by their own so-called leaders.
All The discord we hear today are lies designed to lever money and power back to the Maori Oligarchy… not the common Maori…. whom are just Pawns in the Elitists game…. as has always been the Case.

The Great Waitangi Debate. 2010

Thursday 6 February 2014 Tim 3 Comments

Not only is the Treaty separatist movement deceitful and immoral.. a giant scam, it is also the chief reason Maori have such horrible social statistics because it poisons the soul and teaches them to blame others for their own choices and misery.
Today we have Mongrel Mob Murderers appealing their sentences ‘on the basis that they are Maori’…. this is supposed to define them *as helpless victims of greater injustices*.
And this has become the Official line…. This is what they are teaching your kiddies at school.

What is their solution?
To Teach Boy’s they are ‘Warriors’…. that ‘the system’ is some foreign invaders tyranny…. that life was wonderful here before the white man turned up. etc as if that’s really going to help them in their relationships…. and help them to succeed in society!

It teaches them to deny 1/2 of their owe heritage!…. because they are all part- Pakeha too!

As a Maori among Maori, it has been a lonely, thankless and even dangerous path for me to speak out these truths for the sake of opening the Eyes of the Maori people that they have been deceived by the Racist radicals in their midst who are teaching them to become horrible Racist Haters.
When the truth challenges Political Advantage and calls for an end to the blame game, and for Self-responsibly instead …. it is a remedy that is not received with gratitude.
Maori have identified themselves with the disease… and it frightens them to abandon such a world view…. yet it is my sincere belief that it is the average Maori individual who has the most to gain from ending Waitangi apartheid and establishing racial equality before the Law.
Under Equality Maori can and will prosper and will be free to revel in their own culture… no longer political footballs….. this is my dream.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian Independent.

t and j
Tim Wikiriwhi and John Ansell speaking at the Hamilton ‘Treatygate’ meeting in 2013.