Kai Mate! Kai Mate! Translated into English “Eat you when your Dead” “Eat You when your Dead!”
(Repeat for 5 minutes)
I am Copyrighting this Haka. (to cause a stir… and expose a Political charade)
Now this is what a Pre-European War Haka was really all about!
Warriors would waive their Bare Butts at eachother to indicate that they were going to Kill, and Eat their enimies, and shit them out… render them down to shit… (and make combs and fish hooks from their bones)… Lyrics like this could be added to my Kai Mate Haka… in keping with Acient tradition and real Pre-European Maori culture.
I believe My Haka is in fact *The True Haka*… written by the Notorious Cannibal and Mater of Maori Warfare … the ferocious Te Rauparaha!
The Modern version being nothing but a ‘Politically correct’ fraud… designed to hide the truth about Pre-European Maori life and culture… of which Cannabalism was the norm… and indeed celebrated… ritualised… and feared.
The Libertarianz Party have put out a Press release which proposes the formation of a moderated Libertarian Party under the leadership of Peter Cresswell.
Now I like Peter. He’s a very smart man, and has many great leadership qualities yet I have serious reservations about his ability to lead the New Party.
The press release mentions the fact that the new parties policies would have to be toned down into more palatable bite sized portions…more readily digestible for the Timid masses.
I say that’s not good enough!
The problem I have is that it was the dominance of Objectivism which ruined the Libertarianz Party… esp its staunch Anti-religion and Cold/Selfish Egoism.
I say what is needed most is a separation of the Objectivist Church and the Party.
Thus The rhetoric of the Party needs to be modified in general terms to state facts without crossing the line of separation between righteous expositions and un-libertarian personal bents.
Eg When talking about Islamic Terrorism, It is important to frame commentary in such a way that condemns the atrocities without collictivising all Muslims or the Islamic religion as an enemy of freedom.
When discussing issues like abortion, or the teaching of creationism in schools…these subjects must be handled with tact… not tirades about how irrational Religion is…
Is Peter Creswell the Right Man for the Job?
I’m not so sure. Can an Objectivist Zealot change his spots?
Richard McGrath is a far more moderate personality.
IMO the Randoid PC could be the worst possible choice… I will be attending the Conference on Saturday, and will be listening carefully to What PC has to say…
I Hope he supprises me!
This will take as great a personal transformation for PC as is necessary for this New Libertarian Party to shrugg off the Ugliness which spoiled the true Glory of the old Libertrarianz Party.
The New Party must show Kiwi’s They have a Heart.
Having said this I dont even hold out much hope for my own participation!
Will a more moderate Party have room for such an uncouth scoundrell as I?
Will they welcome someone who is already critical of the direction they are taking?
I dont know.
This Blog post may be unpopular yet is written to raise this vital issue for discussion.
The New Party must start off on the right footing.
Imagine that one night, an alien prankster secretly implants electrodes into the brains of an entire country – let’s say Britain. The next day, everyone in Britain discovers that pictures of salmon suddenly give them jolts of painful psychic distress. Every time they see a picture of a salmon, or they hear about someone photographing a salmon, or they even contemplate taking such a picture themselves, they get a feeling of wrongness that ruins their entire day.
I think most decent people would be willing to go to some trouble to avoid taking pictures of salmon if British people politely asked this favor of them. If someone deliberately took lots of salmon photos and waved them in the Brits’ faces, I think it would be fair to say [he] isn’t a nice person. And if the British government banned salmon photography, and refused to allow salmon pictures into the country, well, maybe not everyone would agree but I think most people would at least be able to understand and sympathize with the reasons for such a law.
So why don’t most people extend the same sympathy they would give Brits who don’t like pictures of salmon, to Muslims who don’t like pictures of Mohammed?
“…On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology…”
Haha I don’t put too much weight on these sorts of ‘Findings’.
I certainly don’t believe Woman empathise more than Men, or that Libertarians Empathise less than socialists. I think this conclusion shows a failure to appreciate the Christian Libertarian belief that Liberty and self reliance tends to greater prosperity for everyone, and thus less poverty, and a greater voluntary spirit of community, and benevolence…. all things which socialism destroys. Thus Liberty fosters a more Christian spirit. Yet of course the Objectivists have done their best to destroy this understanding of Freedom and empathy, and instead promoted Selfishness… thus again they have done their best to undermine the Libertarian cause…
As for the IQ Part… well I don’t put much weight on thoses things either as there have been plenty of high IQ Morons!
Apparently plenty of Hi IQ folk believe the theory of Evolution!
So that proves IQ is no Guarantee of intelligence/ wisdom!
Yet I do Believe Socialists are stupid!
That is an empirical Fact!
(I guess I stand convicted of Lack of Tact! Yet I dont believe Being PC shows empathy either… really it’s cloaked Malice)
Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.
I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.
Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.
This by Michael Hooton just appeared on the National Business Review website.
A new liberal bloc
Next weekend, the Libertarianz will hold their annual conference in Auckland.
The party has a record of electoral failure exceeding even where ACT is today, peaking at just 6000 votes in 1999.
In its defence, the party points out – with some justification – former National leader Don Brash, former Act MP Deborah Coddington and former United Future MP Marc Alexander can be seen as previous parliamentary torchbearers for its ideas.
This year, though, it is getting serious, calling its conference Towards a True Liberal Bloc in parliament. Its doors are open to anyone who believes there needs to be a new political party in parliament advocating small-government, liberal solutions to economic and social problems.
It believes next year’s local body elections will provide a proof-of-concept opportunity, claiming some rural and provincial New Zealanders are facing rates rises of up to 40%, largely because of parliament’s idiotic 2002 decision to grant local government general competence.
Libertarianz representation on councils and parliament would undoubtedly be good for New Zealand, but achieving it will require discipline which classical liberals and libertarians are programmed to resist.
Historically, like the far left, the movement has suffered from regular schisms.
While all libertarians agree that self-interest, individual rights and capitalism are the ethical, political and economic systems of objectivist philosophy, some insist the political wing must also insist, for example, on romantic realism in art.
Others believe broadly in classical liberalism but would be quite happy with, say, vouchers for all schools rather than wholesale abandonment of the state system.
There are potentially as many different opinions as there are libertarians over matters from tolerance toward Islamism or creationism being taught in schools to defence.
Without destroying the very nature of libertarianism, a way must be found to accommodate different views while achieving the degree of political discipline necessary to win the 100,000 votes to get into parliament.
The good news for everyone who would like to see the Libertarianz succeed is that all matters of political strategy appear to be on the table, including perhaps even the party’s name.
If they do get into parliament they will not see themselves so much as a coalition partner for Mr Key but a faction to give his government a kick up the bum.
The Green Party has lodged a complaint with the Police over the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal interception of Kim Dotcom’s communications, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.
Well done Green Party and Russel Norman.
… one more thing… everyone is labeling this Government action as “illegal” or “unlawful” – which is true but minimises the action. We need to change to calling it “criminal” because the government’s actions were criminal.
Muhammad sadik firstname.lastname@example.org via angel.estarr.com
I am a Murder Agent, am from Kuwait i’ve no other job than to kill to survive…
you have been betrayed by some one very very close to you.he payed me to kill you.and i don’t know what you did to him and i don’t care to know..but the person wants you dead and right now your life is in your own hands now..you have just 7 days to live after that me and my men shall come for your life..
My men monitors all you movement in and out.
my men are well surrounding your house right now watching you and if you do anything stupid you shall receive a gun short from them.. but i can help you if you will pay me double of what he payed me………and i can also tell you who ordered us to kill you..but that will be after you have payed to save your life..your life is as stake now….
I await your immediate response as i do not have time to waste.
The Crimes Act 1961 Section 408 Act to bind the Crown
This Act shall bind the Crown.
In theory the Crown is subject to the Crimes Act – being a Crown representative acting for the Crown can not excuse anyone from being prosecuted under the Crimes Act.
The Crimes Act 1961 Section 216B Prohibition on use of interception devices
(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.
According to the law – whoever intercepted Kim Dotcom’s communications committed a crime. Whoever that was they should be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. It’s hard to imagine a greater breach of this section.
The Police have all the information they need to start a criminal investigation and should start investigating shortly… I feel another Tui Billboard coming on. The Police are probably asking themselves “How long can we avoid this and how long is the statute of limitations for illegal interception?”