I got a pleasant suprise today! I found this Picture in the NZ Herald!
Article: ‘Billboards put Heat on Council’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804226
The Hamilton Rates rebellion has begun… And Im in!
I have not yet spoken to this ‘Concerned citizen’
I have signed up to the Website: http://www.concernedcitizen.co.nz/
I vote in the poll to dump the Lot!
I have messaged His facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.405595012808508.97215.100000740373954&type=1#!/CitizenNZ
And I wait in hope that we can work together for the common Goal of reducing Hamilton City debts and rates burden.
I hope he is able to see that I have an action Plan, and that bringing my experience in local body politics into The HCC would be of great benifit to the Citizens of Hamilton.
Update: 9-5-12
From comments made in today’s Herald it appears that I ought not expect any ‘concern’ from ‘Concerned Citizen’ as he says he has no intension of ‘Helping’ anyone get elected as replacements for the current bunch he wants out.
I find that strange, yet for me this is an all too common disappointment so I have learned not to have high hopes. I have lost nothing by trying.
I have become used to being misunderstood, undervalued and overlooked by those whom you would think would be keen to work with me in a principled and systematic program of reforms designed to lift Hamilton out of Debt, ease the Rates burden, and lay down clear policies which prevent the same overspending slide that brought about the current crisis.
I have proven my commitment to down sizing Council with Ten years active participation in the democratic process, and countless articles and Letters.
Should He have decided to work with me in concert that would have been to mutual advantage.
For Me to actually get elected I need help raise my profile, and he would have had his first committed ‘Reformer’ in the breach ready for action.
I will not fret about it too much.
There is Bugger all I can do about it! Better I spend my energies taking the Battle to the enemy.
Est la vie! I shall carry on as I have always done…
If he busies himself exposing the Largess of the current brood in power he will still be doing Hamilton a good service, yet risks the Election of a worse than useless bunch of replacements who at election time may pay lip service to reducing the rates burden, yet not have a clue as to how to achieve it, nor the backbone that such difficult work requires.
I actually wonder If Concerned citizen know how to make the necessary reforms or whether he is simply an angry and vocal Ratepayer and has not really contemplated what is involved? Does he have a plan?
Even if this is the case I still salute his Righteous anger!
And who knows he may have a change of Heart as the Election draws Near.
My 150 word Election profile for Hamilton West Ward 2010
Hamilton deserves better management. I have extensive experience in local body politics, with a focus on keeping Council powers and expenses in check. As an innovative thinker I can propose new and better ways to solve the same old problems. Better solutions that reduce ratepayer burdens and Council responsibilities, and create opportunity for free enterprise, voluntary community action and philanthropy. I would rally in defense of Hamiltonians getting trampled underfoot by the grand schemes of clumsy power trippers. I champion self reliance and liberty.
Having grave concerns for the lost youth within our city, I would be most happy to work with others in providing guidance and mentoring to rescue this wasting talent and potential. I will assist the Mayor in achieving a sustainable and liberal Council. Let’s cut red tape and make Hamilton a fun city which the Springboks would enjoy, and the Waipa Delta wants to return to!
How to solve Hamiltons Rates Crisis By Tim Wikiriwhi
Can papyrus grow tall where there is no marsh?
Can reeds thrive without water?
While still growing and uncut,
they wither more quickly than grass.
Such is the destiny of all who forget God;
so perishes the hope of the godless.
What they trust in is fragile;
what they rely on is a spider’s web.
They lean on the web, but it gives way;
they cling to it, but it does not hold.
They are like a well-watered plant in the sunshine,
spreading its shoots over the garden;
it entwines its roots around a pile of rocks
and looks for a place among the stones.
But when it is torn from its spot,
that place disowns it and says, ‘I never saw you.’
Surely its life withers away,
and from the soil other plants grow. (NIV)
In 2009 I wrote an opinion piece about how Democracy *ought* to function using
the Election of Barack Obama as an example.
I placed his election in contrast to that of Our Racially perverted electoral
system to show Why we must get rid of this perversion of democracy and justice.
The Maori seats must Go!
Note: I am in no way endorsing Barack Obama or the American Democrats.
I am pointing out that Barack Obama won election on equal terms with whites.
I re post it Below because this fight is yet to be won.
Cheers
Tim W
Universal Pride in Washington, Separatist Shame in Wellington.
Tim Wikiriwhi. 2009
The world witnessed an historic event in Barack Obama’s victory as the President of the USA. Even for defeated Republicans and sceptical Libertarians it was one of the greatest days in American history. His nomination for the Democratic party presidential candidate occurred on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I have a Dream” speech, with Americans poignantly aware of the realisation of racial social equality before their eyes. Obama has become the American symbol of equality before God and the law.
To achieve this Obama not only defeated The National Hero, Republican John McCain, he also beat off political high flier and rival Democrat Hilary Clinton, herself an icon of social equality for woman. While no nation on earth will ever be free of racial bigotry, in America the violent history of slavery and political racial bigotry has today been put to rest.
The most vital lesson we Kiwi ought to take from the Obama victory is that he did it on equal terms in competition with white men and women in a proper democratic election, free of any racist electoral rolls or special race-based seats. Consequently all American candidates must stand for the same offices and must appeal to the same multi-ethnic electorates, cutting off opportunity for unscrupulous politicians to pedal political, racial favouritism with impunity as is the current modus operandi of racist groups here in New Zealand; such as the Maori Party who pedal apartheid politics, taking full advantage of our racially perverted democracy.
The Racists of New Zealand have the luxury of being able to ignore and even slander all non-Maori and still get elected. The Maori party policies display a total disregard of the principles of equality before the law. Our racist system has in fact served the opposite purpose to the American democracy, having entrenched a great racial divide, instead of racial equality as displayed by the election of Barack Obama. Because our system has never been properly constituted, consecutive Labour and National lap dogs of the UN have implemented its racist doctrines of indigenous rights. Racial separatism is government policy in our sad little nation, complete with racist political institutions, multi-million dollar extortions and laws.
While we too have had a recent change of Government, and are glad to see the back of Helen Clark, the result was little to celebrate. As the Libertarianz party candidate in Hamilton West, I campaigned for racial equality before the law and an end to our separatist electoral system. I told voters that as far as racial justice is concerned, it would make absolutely no difference to vote for either Clark or Key, as both of them were prepared to negotiate with the racial separatists of the Maori Party.
In their campaigns for the Maori seats, and now also in MMP Coalition talks, it is routine for striving Labour and National parties to bargain away the rights and liberties of all non-Maori New Zealanders. This is the consequence of having race-based seats in parliament, and a legal system which like Nazi Germany makes racist laws.
The Honourable Don Brash.
There has been one very important exception to this racist bargaining. It was in the run-up to the 2005 general election in which National Party leader Don Brash single-handedly exposed the treaty of Waitangi gravy train as a travesty and decried the shame of having an apartheid electoral system. He set about putting National in stark contrast to Labour on the fundamental principle of equality before the law. Decades of socialist meddling had brought race relations in New Zealand to an all-time low.
Migrants and tourists began to express how appalled they were at the levels of violent racism and xenophobia in God’s Own. National was at an all-time low in the polls and were desperate to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Don Brash wisely saw the time was right to make race relations the central issue to the next election, and in the process of exposing the injustices and scams of the status quo, Clark was forced to withdraw her support for treaty separatism and indigenous rights in a bid to stave off a massive shift in the general electorates over to National, which threatened to dwarf the significance of pandering for support in the separatist seats. In turn the Maori radicals Tariana Turia and co were jettisoned from Labour, and chose to form their own radical separatist party rather than tone down their bigotry and remain in government as Clark’s machinations required of her underlings.
This was a massive coup for Don Brash, and had Labour not lied, stolen, and overspent over half a million taxpayer dollars to corruptly steal victory, Don Brash would have been prime minister, and our nation today would have been well on its way to a wonderful day of pride such as has just been witnessed in America… The day we re-found our Nation upon a new constitution of Equality before the Law.
In 2005, had the integrity of Winston Peters truly been first to New Zealanders, and not the baubles of power – first to his campaign promises of ending apartheid and not to his own crushed vanity at defeat in the Tauranga seat – he could have supported a Brash government, and have played a hero’s role in the fight for Justice and Equality before the Law. Yet as his actions would prove, he is without scruples. He jumped into bed with Helen Clark, and so by the skin of her teeth, by lies, theft, and bribery, she retained her grip on power, and New Zealand remains ensnared in socialist treaty separatism.
Brash had raised his party back into a fighting force, yet was himself to fall victim to petty personal politics. Soon afterwards the Clark government was scraping the bottom of the political barrel due to their unpopular legislative meddling regarding the anti-smacking and electoral finance bills.
Quisling PM John Key ‘Brown noses’ with Radical Racist and would-be terrorist Tame Iti.
National’s new leader John Key is not cut from the same cloth as the honourable Don Brash. John Key realised that come election time Clark was history as long as he did not put his foot in his mouth. So National fought the most PC campaign of hollow words chosen for their cultural safety, making no radical policies distinguishable from Labour; also bending over backwards for support from the Maori radicals who command the racist seats. To get that support he was even willing to hongi terror suspect Tama Iti, who had just been discovered plotting to kill him and other pakeha New Zealanders. He also distanced himself from Don Brash.
His abandonment of the Brash campaign of one law for all New Zealanders was the green light to the renewal of apartheid politics, and having been let off the hook on which Brash had hung them, the Clark government instantly re-commissioned their Treaty separatist policies in a bid for support from the Maori seats. A flood of Treaty claims were settled as Dr Cullen hurriedly bribed his way back into favour with Maori communities.
Much to the glee of Maori radicals, Labour’s Treaty settlement minister did not hesitate to breach the 1 billion dollar cap that had been placed on settlements, thereby perpetuating the industry indefinitely, as some settlements had such corrupt clauses, that if in the future the billion dollar cap was breached, they could re-negotiate! Thus the consequence of John Key’s pussyfooting, and the shyster politics of Cullen and Clark, have been to expose New Zealanders to racial extortion indefinitely.
We all know John Key’s lame campaign was a success, yet this was not because Clark lost due to any greatness on his part. People reluctantly voted for him. He has now formed a coalition government with the Maori Party and Act. This coalition is a very grievous thing, as it forebodes an ongoing system of extortion which Key must maintain to keep the radicals in his midst onside.
The irony is that not only must Key now carry on the appeasement of Clark and Cullen to racist radicals; he is actually appeasing the very same radicals who were once embedded in the Labour government! We also know the Maori Party intends the entrenchment of racism so deep into our political system that it becomes democratically impossible to abolish.
Furthermore they are relentlessly soliciting Maori to sign onto the separatist roll so as to grow the number of apartheid seats in parliament. This in itself has the effect of making an audacious break with racist appeasement such as Don Brash made so much less likely to succeed.
Because Key’s coalition relies on appeasing the Maori radicals, it has meant that no progress has been made in international relations with Fiji, despite Clark’s exit. Had Brash become PM, I believe he would have extended a hand of friendship to Bainimarama, and offered assistance in making Fiji a nation of equality before the law, just as he hoped New Zealand would become. Yet we have no hope of this with Key, and so NZ-Fiji relations continue to ferment.
This is the current situation. Race relations in New Zealand are at an all time low; violent crime is still on the rise, committed disproportionately by Maori.
The Act Party have compromised themselves for 5 pieces of silver by getting into bed with Key and Turia. Rodney Hide should have thrown down the gauntlet and told Key “No deal with the racists!” He didn’t. Now Act can have no claims to represent equality before the law!
Only the Libertarianz party remains true to this cause!
The Libertarianz party wants to dump the Treaty, the racist electoral rolls and the racist seats in parliament and town councils. We would abolish all race based laws and institutions and shred the UN codebook on indigenous rights. If elected, the Libertarianz party will enshrine the principle of equality before the law into a new constitution – a watershed in legal reform – setting our nation up for future prosperity and justice. This constitution will benefit Maori as much as everyone else. Maori will still be Maori the day we abolish the Treaty. It will only stop the radicals from using their own people as pawns, and extorting money and favours from the rest of us.
How long will this travesty continue? I can only wonder what predicaments we are bequeathing our own posterity in not having the moral fortitude today to face the racial separatists in a showdown and abolish the apartheid electoral rolls and seats in parliament immediately! Until that day America can be proud – but we can’t. They have a better and more just Democracy than we racially divided Kiwi! We cannot expect to enjoy the same national pride for being a land of freedom and equality, because our current socialists are running a separatist system of apartheid!
Until Kiwis stop voting for pragmatist socialist politicians, and grasp the essential need for government by legal principle, and not divisive socialist policy, things will only get worse here. That’s a guarantee.
Tim Wikiriwhi twikiriwhi@yahoo.co.nz
Update: 8-5-12
I posted a link to this Blogpost in Don Brash’s facebook page and recieved this most gracious reponse..
“Tim, you are very generous – I greatly appreciate your comments, thanks.”
I’m going to go out on a limb here … I think Objectivism is a form of demonic possession.
Satan’s greatest trick was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.
Rand’s greatest trick was convincing mental cripples that they are the epitome of rationality.
There’s a connection.
Consider what Jesus says about the devil: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!”
Do you ever get the impression, talking to Objectivists, that they simply don’t hear what you say? I certainly do. A lot of it comes down to Rand’s penchant for pernicious redefinition. Rand twisted words like ‘altruism’, ‘sacrifice’, ‘selfishness’, ‘concept’, ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘reason’ and ‘existence’ and so on, beyond recognition in some cases. Pernicious redefinition is tantamount to lying.
Again, there’s a connection.
Satan loves cults. It is of the nature of cults to put in place mechanisms that make it easy to join and difficult to leave. Cults almost invariably have strong contempt for the intellect, human intelligence, and any attempt to think independently.
Do you ever wonder why so much scorn is heaped on “philosophers,” “academics,” and “intellectuals” around here? I argue that Objectivism is a cult here and in several places here.
Satan loves Objectivism. As a matter of fact, my first exposure to Objectivism was the potted, plagiarised version that Anton LaVey tried to rebrand as Satanism.
If you think you might be insane, you’re probably not. Denial is a hallmark of true madness. It’s also Satan’s calling card. Reason is an Objectivist’s only absolute. But how many Objectivists are up-to-speed with even the basic elements of critical thinking? Not many, if any. Check out the total lack of interest in the virtues of rationality on display here. “Check your premises,” said Rand. But most Objectivists don’t know what a premise is. They don’t know that ‘valid’ is a technical term in logic. They don’t want to know about reason, and they particularly don’t want to know what Hume said about the limits of reason.
Denial, delusion, dishonesty … all the tell-tale signs of demonic possession, and all on flagrant display here. Like a skilfully coded Trojan, Objectivism’s first target is its host’s defences against infection. Objectivism quickly disables the mind’s rational faculty, often to such an extent that an Objectivist will mistake a mantra for an argument.
Hatred, vilification and scapegoating of Christianity are further conspicuous Objectivist traits … Satan’s near. If you don’t believe in demonic possession … think of Objectivism as an insidious mind virus.
When the Bible says “Charity never faileth…” its talking about the virtue of always being charitible, not that there wont ever be derths of Charity. History is filled with deeds and ages of inhumanity.
It ought to be obvious that true charity and compusory taxation are not the same thing.
One gives in liberty from a heart felt love of humanity and a self imposed moral obligation to help his neigbour when they are in need, while the other is obliged to give ‘welfare’ via Government coersion… and not from the heart at all.
Social welfare is not Christian charity. Welfare via coersion is actually an alternitive Anti-Christian system of ‘false alms’. Many Christians foolishly mistake Lefty communism for true Christian charity.
“The process of converting social power into State power may perhaps be seen at its simplest in cases where the State’s intervention is directly competitive.” A Nock.
A Face book conversation I am currently having reminded me of a great political thinker… Albert J. Nock
The conversation was started when a fellow face booker posted an article that The Super City Council was considering making Auckland Ratepayers fork out for the building of a dry dock for the benefit of the super Rich mega yachts.
He lamented this expense…
Quote:
“Instead of the city propping up unprofitable business adventures, there are plenty of other projects crying out for funds that have no appeal to private enterprise but will be of direct benefit to all – or groups – of ratepayers. Just the other day came a story that Auckland’s 777 community sports fields are closed more than 20 per cent of the time – more in winter when most needed – because of poor drainage.”
He believes that would be misguided values and a gross injustice to use Ratepays money to build a dry dock for the wealthy and Better spent by government upon Drainage for a community sports ground.
This may sound like a good proposition to many yet I think he is making a serious mistake, which is to assume it is a good thing for the Government to be involved in things ‘which Free enterprise has interest yet will be a direct benefit to all”. He is assuming that unless the Government steps up… things like the poor drainage of a sports field would never be resolved.
Concuring with this mans first point that it would indeed be a travesty for the state to build dry docks for the wealthy… and then moved strait to the point he made in respect to …’other beneficial projects that have no appeal to free enterprise’
“May I suggest it is neither just or necessary to use political coercion to make these ‘Non attractive yet socially benificial projects’ a reality either.”
I offered up my Libertarian alternative…
“There is the mechanism of the voluntary association/ society by which the spirit of charity and social wellbeing is voluntarily organized in non-profit organizations. It is via these mechanisms that people may show their Humanitarianism without recourse to Political coercion or using the ‘filthy lucre’ of money Politicians have extorted from the people via Rates and taxes. B y leaving all such ‘projects’ to the voluntary sector and forbidding the Councils or Government from getting involved in such things we can rope in Government Medaling and better control their expenditure. This way we restrict their powers and spheres of operations to their proper duties, and set up the dynamics of society by which Non-political solutions to problems and needs are both understood and may prosper.
Albert J Nock wrote on this important subject and showed that The more social responsibilities the state takes control of, the more the Self-reliant Social spirit of the community atrophies , and so becomes less able to fend for itself, and more dependent upon the state.
This is the Process by which the people are rendered irresponsible and gullible worshippers of Nanny State because they assume all life’s problems have political solutions.
We Libertarians seek to reverse this process and thereby increase society’s ability to look after itself in freedom, and reduce dependence and the costs, and spheres of operation of the state.
It is a society in which voluntary associations flourish, and Government expenses bureaucracy are kept to a minimum.
The Christian fellowship is a voluntary association.
It ought never to be used as an excuse for political impostions of private ‘values’
It preaches voluntary embraced values, voluntary action, voluntary charity, thus functions propery without political coersion.
Christian virtue, self reliance, and Liberty are in harmony.
“Thus the State “turns every contingency into a resource” for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally adjusted – or as I believe our American glossary now has it, “conditioned” – to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. All the State’s institutional voices unite in confirming this tendency; they unite in exhibiting the progressive conversion of social power into State power as something not only quite in order, but even as wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
A Nock. Our Enemy, the State
The State, always instinctively “turning every contingency into a resource” for accelerating the conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind. All that was needed to organize these unfortunates into an invaluable political property was to declare the doctrine that the State owes all its citizens a living; and this was accordingly done. It immediately precipitated an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, an enormous resource for strengthening the State at the expense of society…”
A Nock. Our Enemy, the State
There’s a quotation doing the atheist rounds. It is purportedly due to someone called Stephen F. Roberts.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
I contend that we are both monotheists. I just believe in one more god than he does.
In an article in the New Statesman, Ciarán Hanway explains that he’s not a man of faith … he’s an atheist. The article is titled I believe in one less god than monotheists…. Hanway explains
Let’s start with the basics. What does “Atheism” mean? It’s a word derived from the Greek word “theos”, meaning “God”, and the prefix “a-“, meaning “without”. An atheist is someone without a belief in god. It is as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a belief system that tells me how to behave or what to eat. It is a simple statement of my lack of belief in God. I could be a fascist, a communist, a monetarist, a narcissist.
… or a rock, or a puddle, or … Rocks and puddles are things without a belief in god. Indeed, rocks and puddles are things with no beliefs at all.
Monotheists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do.
Ayn Rand was an atheist. She “just happened” to believe in one less god than I do. I believe in the existence of God … but I also believe in the existence of Satan. If Ayn Rand literally believes in one less god than I do, she must believe in Satan … but not in God. So … Ayn Rand is a Satanist!
I leave it as an exercise for the Objectivist reader to identify the flaw(s) in my argument.
A couple of days ago, columnist Joe Bennett concluded his column in The Press by telling us
I’m going to spend the afternoon finding out how I’ve chosen to enjoy myself.
You’re about to find out that you’ve chosen to read on to see what on earth Joe Bennett was talking about. Here’s the start of his column.
But first an apology. A month or so back a gentleman emailed me about something I’d said on the radio. He wrote, and I quote, “free will is a childish delusion”.
“Scoff,” I wrote back. “Pooh pooh. I have free will. My free will is writing this email. Without free will we are automata.”
Since then, however, I have been on a wee journey and I would like to retract my scoff and pooh pooh. But I have forgotten the gentleman’s name and deleted his email.
So if you’re reading this, sir, sorry. You were right. I was wrong.
The change of mind followed last week’s column about the mutiny of the body.
In response I got several emails directing me to some neuroscientific research. It seems that neuroscientists have been nibbling at the idea of free will for years without telling me.
For example they attached electrodes to people’s skulls and then asked the people to click a computer mouse at a moment of their choosing. The boffins found that when people decided to click the mouse, their brain had already begun the physical process of clicking. In other words, the decision to click had been made before the people realised they’d made it. The click was already going to happen.
There were numerous similar experiments. They all suggested that when we think we decide to do something of our own free will, our consciousness is merely catching up with a decision that we have already made. We are rationalising after the fact.
We are deluding ourselves into thinking we are in conscious control of our actions. It’s a nice, consoling delusion, but a delusion none the less.
Problem? Well, yes! If we have no free will, we have no moral responsibility for our actions.
No free will means that Christianity is a nonsense.
No free will means that “not my problem” doesn’t cut it.
I’ve known of the experimental results to which Bennett refers for the past 15 years or so, ever since I read Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained. 15 years later, I still have no rejoinder.
Dennett takes us to a very high mountain and shows us all the sciences of naturalism and their splendour. “Everything you want … you can have,” says Dennett.
