Low Lives in High Places. Water and John Key’s Racist Alliance

Re: Maori Grab for ownership of Water.
The latest saga in the perverse politics of Waitangi apartheid are very telling of how our shameful separatist system functions.
It is a testament to the Machiavellianism of the Maori Radicals of this country watching how they use the opportunity presented By John Keys plan to sell off assets like hydropower, to make a bid for ownership of the Water.
“>By admitting the recommendations of the Waitangi tribunal may be ignored by parliament in respect to Maori claims to ownership of the water, John Key exposes the travesty of the whole Treaty Grievance industry!
It is an admission that the tribunal is not as we have been told… a legitimate tribunal which functions to right supposed injustices of the Past, but a militantly racist body with an biased and extortionate agenda… and whose findings and ‘recommendations’ ought never tobe believed to be just.
Key has been caught in a web of his own construction.
.
This confrontation with the Maori Party exposes John Key himself as a Political shyster who was prepared to sell New Zealanders out to the racists… simply to acquire and maintain Political power for himself!
This is patently obvious because he has measured just how much political capital he can afford to surrender to the Racist Maori Party whom he relies on for support, without ‘spooking the sheeple’ in the larger General electorate.
It ought to be obvious why Key has assumed this new position in regard to The Waitangi tribunal.
It is not because of any freah realisation that the tribunal is corrupt , or any principle other than the political expedience of self preservation… ie It simply because he understands that cannot afford to surrender as mush political capital as they demand… without risking his own political power base.

This history is repeating itself.
The Key-Turia relationship hangs in the balances just as not long ago the Clark-Turia relationship hung in the ballance… in the days of the Foreshore and seabed debate .
Like John Key, Helen Clark was a cold calculator of her own political self-interest., and figured out that it was cheaper to alienate the racist radicals in her midst, rather than loose massive proportions in the general electorates to Don Brash, whom was championing the abolishment of the Racist electoral system, winding up the Grievance industry, and establishing ‘One Law for all New Zealanders’.
This is how the Maori Party was formed… out of Radical racist jettersoned from the Labour Party.
And not being as principled as Don Brash, it is these radicals whom John Key decided he needed on his team.
Right now Key is not concerning himself with Justice for New Zealanders. He is not even concerned about Justice for Maori. He is busy scheming how he can maintain his own grip on power …just as Helen Clark once did.
I have no doubt that he will be negotiating with the Maori party for a huge share of the state assets which are to be sold to be given to their separatist support base, in exchange for a temporary reprieve regarding the ownership of the water itself.
This is an old trick the Racists have used to gain ‘custodianship’ of things like the Waikato river.
They will agree to this deal knowing they can come for the water again at a latter date.
That we find ourselves in the very same situation…being held to ransom by the very *same racists*… just goes to show that Don Brash was right… there will be no end to this Racist Political charade until we end Waitangi apartheid and the grievance industry…and the lies they are founded upon.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.
Hamilton West.

The Lust of the Eye. Gen 3vs6. 1John2vs15-17

Thank heaven for little girls
for little girls get bigger every day!

Thank heaven for little girls
they grow up in the most delightful way!

Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
one day will flash and send you crashin’ thru the ceilin’

Thank heaven for little girls
thank heaven for them all,
no matter where no matter who
for without them, what would little boys do?

Thank heaven… thank heaven…
Thank heaven for little girls!

One Sunny day, Adam was yarning with God in the garden and he asked him
“Tell me Father, Why did you make woman soooo beautiful?
God replied… “So that you would love her my son”.
Then Adam thinking about that asked… “But why did you make her so stupid?”
“So that she would love you my son”… God replied.

The Bible has Mankind pegged.
It’s description of our deviant character is beyond dispute, and proven true by everyday experience.

Is this article true?
We’ll from personal experience I must confess it holds true for me.
The lust of the eye is truly a Powerfull thing.
God sure did an awesome job when he made the feminine form!
It is Art at it’s best, and one of the reasons I believe in him!
Yet I confess to ‘lusting’ rather than merely ‘appreciating’.
It is a very difficult problem to overcome.
The danger is in ‘Worshipping the creature more than the Creator’


The Islamic solution.


Nice try….

The lust of the Eye is as St Paul would say ‘A Thorn in the flesh’ which humbles me.
It exposes my sinfulness and lack of moral fibre, and need for Christ.
I post this to the net because I have no desire to pretend to be ‘Holier than thou’.
If I am going to be saved from the just Judgement of God it will be by Grace alone.
My own imperfection is one of the reasons I believe Libertarianism is the correct political philosophy for such Christians as I in that while i believe the morality of the Bible is valid… I am in no position to cast the first stone.
Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believing Dispensationalist Libertarian Christian.

I have actively defended sex workers Liberty…


Here I am in 2010 ‘Boobs on bikes parade’ Hamilton. (see me step into the parade @ about 0:40)


Check me out the next years Parade in 2011 (at aprox 2:40)

Narcissistic Nanny

What’s Up? 4 Non Blondes.
Twenty-five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
And I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes
When I’m lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What’s in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What’s going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what’s going on?
ooh, ooh ooh
and I try, oh my god do I try
I try all the time, in this institution
And I pray, oh my god do I pray
I pray every single day
For a revolution
And so I cry sometimes
When I’m lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What’s in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What’s going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what’s going on?
Twenty-five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination

Play the hand you’re dealt

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11)

… From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 2)

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 1), was about animal welfare. Part 2 is about conservation. It’s about not depleting our ocean fisheries of fish. And it’s about not driving species (such as whales) to the verge of extinction.

Today’s post was partly triggered by TVNZ 7: Freedom has a Price, a recent post by atheist Mark Hubbard on his blog Life Behind the IRon Drape. Damien Grant has it exactly right in his comments on Mark’s post. Since he’s pretty much pre-empted what I was going to say, I’ll copy and paste.

But I like fish!

I do not want them to die and I have no faith that fisherman will act in their own best interests.

Save the Flake! Regulate! (repeat)

If the fish had an owner they would not be farmed to extinction. The solution is simple, they need an owner.

It does[n’t] really matter who, but if there is an owner the market can work. If there is no owner you get the tragedy of the commons.

Getting the fish an owner may require some impure statist intervention, but all property, historically, has been acquired … with some impure statist intervention.

Once done you … have fish and freedom!

Well said, Damien. If the price of freedom is no fish, then freedom is unaffordable! Mark says that no fish might, indeed, be the price of freedom, but, thankfully, he’s wrong. And Damien is wrong about the statist intervention being “impure,” for reasons I briefly alluded to.

We need privatisation.

… ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. But they’re scarce. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights.

I’ll spell this out explicitly … after lunch.

So, yeah. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights. (There are more than two theories of property and property rights, and variations of each, and hybrid theories, but this is a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation.) Let’s compare the scarcity theory of property with the production theory of property.

The production theory of property says that if you produce something, or add value to something, it’s yours. The scarcity theory says that if it’s a scarce commodity, and the prevailing social convention says it yours, it’s yours.

If you’re shipwrecked and find yourself alone on a tropical desert island, the production theory of property says that the mangoes you pick from the tree, or the fallen mangoes you pick up off the ground, are your property, but the mangoes you leave on the tree or leave on the ground are not your property. The scarcity theory of property says that none of the mangoes is your property, simply because there is no need for a social convention to allocate mangoes.

The scarcity theory of property, you see, is the answer to a pressing question, viz., how do we allocate scarce resources in a free society? Whereas, the production theory of property is not the answer to anything. It says that if you produce something, or add value to it, then it’s your property, whether you like it or not. I don’t know about you, but if I found myself alone on a desert island, I would eat mangoes. It wouldn’t worry me, or anyone else, in the slightest that they either were or weren’t my mangoes. (Actually, it would worry me if they were my mangoes. I’d be asking myself, why on earth are these my mangoes? And then I’d eat them. To ease my metaphysical anxiety.)

But let’s get back to fish … before I get the urge to pop across to the supermarket for some mangoes.

So, yeah. Two common types of property are tangible goods and land. Both are in scarce supply. The scarcity theory of property handles both types of property. The production theory of property, however, struggles with land. Either it relies on “improvements” to the land to make it property, or it relies on an ad hoc “finders keepers” add-on to the theory. Elegance is an epistemic virtue, and either version of the production theory applied to real estate is inelegant, don’t you think?

Now let’s go to the fish. Ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. Someone who subscribes to the production theory of property plus the “finders keepers” add-on can say that ocean fish become property as soon as they’re caught. They can say that the fish belong to no one until such time as they’re caught. But this way of thinking leads quickly to the tragedy of the commons. Like a gold rush, there’s a fish rush. And, soon, there are next to no fish left. Casting a net for fish becomes like panning for gold. There’s an occasional fish here or there in a net full of nothing. Seemingly, only the heavy hand of statist intervention can rectify the situation and save the fisheries. And libertarianism is severely compromised.

It need not be so! The scarcity theory of property tells us that ocean fish are a scarce commodity and should, therefore, be privatised! How this privatisation is implemented is not as important as the privatisation itself. Allocating quotas, or particular species, or geographic areas of ocean, to interested parties who apply for commercial fishing licences solves the problem of the tragedy of the commons which is the natural outcome of applying the production theory of property to ocean fish. A Ministry of Fisheries (albeit, a very small one) is a legitimate arm of government.

Privatise the whales, too! This can be done by literally tagging whales, there’s so few of them left. And privatise kiwis! If private enterprise was permitted to farm kiwis for food the kiwi would no longer be an endangered species. (Imagine what a hit real kiwiburgers would be with the tourists!) It’s all so common sensical it’s no wonder the government hasn’t seriously considered the proposal.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!