the republican

"'Ka whawhai tonu matou, Ake! Ake! Ake!" Rewi Maniapoto (or Hauraki Tongoa?) at Orakau
"To the soldiers only,who are enemies to our power, to our authority over the land, also to our authority over the people, let our hearts be dark" Hone Heke of Ngapuhi
"When you look at the earth it trembles; when you touch the mountains, they smoke".  Psalm 104

Address correspondence to geoff . fischer @ veri . co . nz (remove spaces)

Bruce Jesson Bibliography


26 May 2021

Te Kawanatanga me te Rangatiratanga

Etahi patai e pa ana ki te koroniaratanga ma nga tangata katoa

Was there a nation of Aotearoa prior to the Treaty of Waitangi?

There was no state in the modern sense of the term (with a civil bureaucracy and dedicated police or military forces), but as contact with European peoples and states increased the iwi of Aotearoa realised that they shared common interests which they should unite to advance and defend. This incipient sense of nationhood and national interest was expressed in He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni of 1835. He Whakaputanga signifies the emergence of a new reality. The transliteration "Nu Tireni" was used to signify te whenua o te ao Maori in its entirety because no equivalent term was in common usage in te reo Maori. "Rangatiratanga" was the word used to express the idea of secular sovereignty and was also the word used to translate the Biblical notion of the kingdom of God - a divinely ordained order based on righteousness, compassion and justice for all. At this time the absolute monarchs of Europe believed that the nation and the state resided in themselves alone, but by choosing to use the word "Rangatiratanga" rather than "Nga Rangatira" in the title of the Whakaputanga the chiefs indicated that they upheld a system of governance, Rangatiratanga, in which all the people had a share.

Are the names "New Zealand" and "Aotearoa" interchangable?

Sometimes they are run together with a slash between ("Aotearoa/New Zealand") to indicate that the writer or speaker considers the two names refer to the same entity. However New Zealand is the colonialist name for the country, and Aotearoa is the most common indigenous name for the country as a whole. Therefore when talking about the colonialist state and society we will normally use the term "New Zealand" and when talking about the nation as a free and independent entity with mana motuhake we use the name "Aotearoa".

Did the Treaty of Waitangi transfer sovereignty from the people of Aotearoa to the Queen of England?

In the English version it does. In the Maori version sovereignty remains with the people of Aotearoa, but the role of governor is given to Queen Victoria. The Maori signatories' position is consistent with He Whakaputanga, in which they acknowledged that they could grant governorship to an outside party while retaining sovereign authority. The Maori signatories acceded to an equitable arrangement which would protect the interests of British trade and British immigrants, with advantage also to themselves, while keeping rangatiratanga inviolate. The British claim to total power over the people of Aotearoa violated international law as well as the principles of English common law and thus was null and void from the beginning.

Did the Treaty of Waitangi extinguish the Rangatiratanga of the people of Aotearoa?

It did not because it could not, regardless of whether we follow the English or Maori version . Rangatiratanga comes from God. It is a way of living and relating to others which is based in righteousness, compassion and justice for all. No treaty or law made by men can extinguish it. Rangatiratanga has been upheld through peace and war, through times of plenty and scarcity. It has been, and always will be with us just so long as that is our choice.

Did the Treaty of Waitangi in any way bind Maori following the death of Queen Victoria?

When the English Parliament decided to accept a foreign monarch and his descendants as its hereditary ruler (Bill of Rights 1688) it did so with the words "the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their Heires and Posterities for ever" No equivalent words appear in either version of the Treaty of Waitangi. So the Treaty of Waitangi gave no hereditary right to the descendants of Queen Victoria, including the present Queen Elizabeth, and the current colonial regime is illegitimate regardless of which version of the Treaty one chooses to uphold.

Is the Treaty the founding document of our nation?

No. The nation existed in embryo from the time of He Whakaputanga five years earlier and has continued an uninterrupted existence ever since. The Treaty of Waitangi made between Victoria and the chiefly signatories neither founded nor extinguished the nation of Aotearoa.

Is there any doubt over the meaning of the Maori text of the Treaty of Waitangi?

No. The respective meanings of "rangatiratanga" and "kawanatanga" are illustrated with absolute clarity in Ruka 3:1 "Na i te tekau ma rima o nga tau o te rangatiratanga o Taipiria Hiha, i a Ponotio Pirato e kawana ana i Huria..". Tiberius Caesar held sovereign authority (rangatiratanga) while Pontius Pilate was governor (kawana) of Judea and subject to Caesar. This text was widely circulated among speakers of te reo at least from 1835 onwards.

Taking the two versions of the Treaty together, can they fit the purpose of being the founding document of the nation of Aotearoa?

No. The two versions of the Treaty are diametrically opposed to each other. That means that the Treaty itself has been and will continue to be the focus of perpetual conflict and distrust. If a nation is to have integrity, in every sense of the word, then its founding document must also have integrity. He Whakaputanga qualifies, but the Treaty does not.

If the English version was the only version of the Treaty would it fit the purpose of being the founding document of the nation of Aotearoa?

It is hard to argue that a document which is the instrument of surrender of sovereignty (cession) can also be the founding document of an independent nation. At best, the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi could be considered to be the founding document of the British Colony of New Zealand, or the British Dominion of New Zealand, but in that case it would still be tainted with a legacy of deceit and betrayal.

Is The Treaty a living document?

Not if that would imply that the document can mean anything you care to make of it. As a document it has precise meanings which can be determined through investigation. However well intentioned, attempts to make the Treaty what it was not will only create greater distrust and conflict.

Who were parties to the Treaty?

The parties were the person of Queen Victoria on the one hand and certain Maori chiefs on the other. It was not an agreement between peoples as such, or, to be specific, an agreement between Maori and Pakeha. Such agreements as were made between the peoples were informal and personal in nature.

Were Pakeha represented by the British crown (Queen Victoria) in the Treaty process?

No. Many Pakeha resident in New Zealand had no loyalty to the British crown, and the Crown did not explicitly purport to be acting on their behalf. The Crown represented itself, and no one else. Many Pakeha preferred to be represented by the chiefs under whose protection they resided. It makes more sense to think of Pakeha who were living in Aotearoa free from the interference of the British Crown as being represented by the Maori chiefs in whose rohe they resided.

Where did the idea of Treaty partnership spring from?

The idea of Treaty partnership arose out of the fact that the two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi directly contradict one another on the question of sovereignty. One says that Victoria is sovereign, the other that the people of Aotearoa are sovereign. The idea of partnership was conceived as a way of getting around the constitutional obstacle created by this contradiction.

Is the Treaty partnership concept just?

No. When two women appeared before King Solomon both claiming to be the rightful mother of a baby child, he ordered that the child be severed in two, and half given to each of the women. But he did so only in order to cause the true mother to relinquish her claim, which was then immediately granted. Because the people of Aotearoa truly know that sovereignty belongs with them and them alone under God, they have no reason to either settle for half of the state, or to surrender the sovereignty entirely to the British Crown.

Is the colonial regime, which claims to trace its origins to the Treaty of Waitangi, legitimate?

A government is considered legitimate if it has its origins in the will of the people, if it faithfully and honestly serves the interests of the people, and if it answers to the people. The colonial regime certainly does not meet the first condition, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that it does not meet the two remaining conditions. Te Rangatiratanga on the other hand meets all three conditions for legitimacy.

What does the word "colony" mean?

The word comes from the Latin for "a farm". Colonies are outposts of empire which are established for the purpose of sending primary produce (food, textiles, timber etc) back to the centre of the empire or "mother country". Colonies are "more or less" subject to the rule and direction of the imperial state, They may have a measure of self-government but are constitutionally and economically subservient to the empire. New Zealand was formally declared to be a colony of Britain by Governor Hobson in 1840. It later became a British "Dominion" and later still a British "Realm". Throughout its history the Realm of New Zealand has been bound in allegiance to a British sovereign, adopted British structures of government, copied British statutes, followed Britain into war, supplied Britain with primary produce and minerals, and amassed debt in the City of London. Two Labour Prime Ministers (Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser) have famously declared "Where Britain goes, we go. Where she stands we stand" and the present Prime Minister supports that stand. All members of Parliament are required to swear allegiance to the British Queen, and the effect that this has on their decision making is clearly evident.

What are the differences between a colonist, settler, colonizer and colonialist?

Colonizers were those in Britain, Australia or New Zealand itself whose principal political objective was to make New Zealand a British colony.
Colonists were the people who went from Britain, Australia and other places to populate the colony of New Zealand in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families. Colonists were first generation immigrants and predominately European.
The colonists who stayed and worked the land were called "settlers" because they "settled" themselves down in the country or alternatively because they "settled" the land out of "wilderness".
A colonialist, on the other hand is any person who believes in the colonial system and swears allegiance to the British sovereign. So colonialists, as distinct from colonizers or colonists, are of the present generation, and can come from any race or background.

Does immigration serve the interests of colonialism?

In the broader picture, colonialism is a product of imperialism (empire-ism). Like all empires, the British empire moved ethnic populations around the globe for the military, economic and political advantage of the "mother country". Chinese were sent to Malaya to produce rubber, Africans to America to pick cotton, Indians to Fiji to cut sugar cane, Tamils to Sri Lanka to pick tea, English, Scots and Irish to Australia, Canada and New Zealand to produce wheat, meat, wool, timber, butter and cheese. The produce of the empire was either shipped home to Britain or used in British trade with the rest of the world. Mass movements of peoples were deemed "necessary" whenever the indigenous peoples (Malays, native American Indians, Fijians, Singhalese and Maori) were not willing to labour for Britain for minimal wages, and in every case the migrations left a legacy of racial tension, which actually suited the British policy of governing by a policy of "divide and rule" between peoples. New Zealand was no exception. In 1870 Premier, Sir Julius Vogel, declared in the colonialist Parliament that "the balancing of the numbers of the two races by a large European immigration - will do more to put an end to hostilities and to confirm peaceful relations, than an army of ten thousand men". This statement was made at a time when the number of Europeans already exceeded the number of Maori, so to Vogel "balancing" clearly meant an overwhelming and dominant majority of Europeans. In the same speech Vogel noted "what sheep breeding (is) to the run-holder...are immigrants ... to the state". Later he stated "the policy seemed to the Government the sole alternative to a war of extermination with the natives". Nothing has changed in the past century. Our colonialist rulers continue to use mass immigration as a tool to depress wages and dispossess our people in the interests of international traders.

Are the people of Aotearoa "one people"?

Unfortunately the idea of "one people" has been taken up by those who wilfully distort history and want us all to submit to colonial rule. They mistranslate William Hobson's words to create the false impression that we became one people through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. As Premier Vogel admitted, the colonial regime's immigration policies were designed to dispossess the native people of Aotearoa. Never-the-less, under colonialism and over the generations New Zealand has absorbed millions of immigrants . They and their descendants have become part of the nation, and what has been done cannot be undone. Now we look to the future. When we have allowed ourselves to be divided (as in the struggles of the nineteenth century) we have lost out to malevolent foreign powers. As Te Hahi Mihinare tells it "kahore he tangata whenua, kahore he tauiwi... i roto i a te Karaiti". I roto i a te Rangatiratanga we become one people: whanau alongside whanau, hapu alongside hapu, iwi alongside iwi, and Maori alongside Pakeha because that is our hope of salvation. Not as "Treaty partners" with those who seriously contemplated a "war of extermination" against our people, but as joint subjects of Ihoa o nga mano in te Rangatiratanga.

Is the word "Pakeha" derogatory?

Many official government documents use the phrase "New Zealand European" when referring to Pakeha. However even though Pakeha may have ancestral connections to Europe, they are not Europeans. Over the generations and under the influence of Maoritanga they have become a unique people. Pakeha were given that name by Maori and the name has been accepted. It is in no way derogatory.

Should we call Pakeha "tangata tiriti"?

"Tangata tiriti" is a modern phrase applied to non-Maori residents of Aotearoa. It comes from the false presumption that the treaty gave Britain the right to sponsor mass immigration to Aotearoa. This is not the case. Mass immigration was organised by the colonial regime in defiance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Pakeha do not have "a right" to be here. They simply are here, as Maori are simply here. That is the reality we have to deal with, and it is for Ihoa o nga mano to instruct us how we deal with it. If the Pakeha have a right to be present in Aotearoa through the Treaty of Waitangi, then that could only be through the disputed English language version of the treaty which gives sovereign authority to the British Crown. It follows that if the Pakeha right to be present is granted by the Crown, then it can be lawfully rescinded by the Crown and that Pakeha have no natural rights and thus are mere creatures of the British Crown. That would not be a good situation for Pakeha or a safe situation for Maori. It would simply add strength to the dangerous and false doctrine that the British Crown has absolute authority over the peoples of Aotearoa.

Are Maori a colonised people?

New Zealand is a colonised country, but would we say that Hone Heke, Te Wherowhero, Tawhiao, Rewi Maniapoto, Wiremu Tamehana Tarapipipi, Titokowaru, Te Kooti, Te Whiti or Te Puea were "colonised" people? So long as they did not surrender to the colonisers, so long as they remained true to te Rangatiratanga, they were not "colonised" as individuals or as a people. So is it helpful to suggest that any of us have been colonised?

Is colonialism a bad thing?

Opinions on that will differ, but given a free choice most of our people would choose not to be subject to a colonialist regime. They would instead opt for rangatiratanga and motu motuhake.

What is the relationship between the nation of Aotearoa and the colonialist state?

It is normallly assumed that the state exists to serve the nation. However a colonial state has an abnormal relationship to the nation. The task of a colonial state is to keep the nation, nationalist sentiments and the forces of nationalism in subjection to a wider imperial system. In most of the former territories of the British empire colonial institutions have been removed and replaced by indigenous ones. The British Queen is no longer head of state in the former British colonies.

Will the realm of NZ always remain subject to the British Crown?

Even some of the most ardent supporters of colonialism, including the present New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern do not claim that. They know that one day Aotearoa will follow the path of mana motuhake, but they seek to postpone that day as long as they possibly can, and we for our part should not be in too great a hurry to end colonial rule, because te Rangatiratanga needs to progress gradually, earning the respect and confidence of the people while the colonial government postures and equivocates in parliament and over the mass media. People will slowly but surely come to realize that colonialism does not serve the interests of the people of Aotearoa, not even those of "British stock". One's attitude to colonisation is influenced, but not determined by, one's racial origins. The thirteen British colonies in North America which rebelled against British rule to form the United States of America were overwhelming British by race. Certain economic, political and social conditions have encouraged many New Zealanders, both Pakeha and Maori, to accept the continuation of British colonialist institutions in New Zealand, but those conditions are changing. New Zealand actually has more reason than say Canada or Australia to move away from its colonialist past. God is leading us to reject the colonialist regime's legacy of invasion, dispossession and planned genocide.

Were the wars of the nineteenth century fought over race, land or sovereignty?

There is no doubt that the colonial regime and the European land speculators that it served coveted Maori lands, and there is no doubt that Maori were seen as the principal impediment to the advance of colonial capitalism and British imperialism in this part of the world. So Maori were the target, not because of what they are but because of what they stood for. Even Governor George Grey, who launched the invasion of the Waikato, and his General, Cameron, respected Maori. The British went to war against Maori because with integrity Maori refused to give an oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria, and, beyond that, because Maori were not interested in becoming subordinate to the global economic system of the British empire. The wars were first and foremost about sovereignty, only secondly about land and hardly at all about race.

Who fought on the colonialist side?

Most of the fighting for the Crown was done by British and Australian regiments, and mercenary foreign fighters. A significant number of Maori from different hapu and iwi ("kupapa") fought for the British imperial forces, particularly in the latter stages of the wars the campaign against Te Kooti Rikirangi Te Turuki for example.

Did any Pakeha fight on the nationalist side?

Yes. Some of the heroes of the nationalist struggle were of mixed Maori and Pakeha parentage. Heni Karamu for example. Te Kooti's lieutenant Eru Peka Makarini had Pakeha and Maori as his parents. A number of European deserters from the imperial forces also fought in the nationalist ranks.

Were any Pakeha lands confiscated by the Crown at the end of the wars?

Yes. The Hetet family, for example, had their land confiscated because of their perceived sympathy for the nationalist cause. This is further evidence that the wars were not just about race, or even primarily about race.

Does it matter that the Head of State for the Realm of New Zealand was not chosen by the people of Aotearoa?

Supporters of the colonialist regime argue that it does not matter because the monarch is just a figure head. If that is the case why was the issue of loyalty to the monarch the cause the invasion of the Waikato, and why is it a condition for occupying the higher offices in the state, for becoming a citizen, and sitting in the House of Representatives (Parliament)? In fact, the regime calculates that those who are willing to accept an unelected foreign head of state over New Zealand will accept any kind of foreign interference and control.

Is it a good thing that the monarch is "not involved in politics"?

Opponents of the regime argue that the Head of State should either be responsible for the actions of the state or at least be free to criticise the way in which the state is administered. In fact the head of state should be morally accountable in the same way that every citizen and state official should be held morally responsible for their acts and omissions. A non-accountable head of state has created a damaging culture of non-accountability at all levels of the Realm.

Is it strictly true that the monarch is "apolitical"?

No. The monarch and her family give tacit support to the institutions of state, particularly the armed forces and other security services. This extends to overt support for the state's participation in wars against non-British peoples around the globe - for example in Iraq or Afghanistan. The monarch's silence is generally and not incorrectly taken to indicate consent for the status quo. No British monarch has ever protested the injustices perpetrated against the Maori people, or, for that matter, against Pakeha.

5 May 2019

He who shall remain nameless - Brenton Tarrant.

The New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said of the man accused of perpetrating the Al Noor massacre "You will never hear me utter his name".
Yet we use the names of the Emperor Nero, Genghis Khan, Dr Crippen, Adolf Eichmann, Pol Pot and all those others who are known to have done evil or to have caused great suffering.
When we choose "never to utter that name again" it is most often the name of one once loved, a son or daughter, husband or wife who has brought us immeasurable grief.    The phrase is not generally applied to the unknown stranger who causes us injury and pain.  Is Brenton Tarrant someone once loved?  That is an intensely political question, and the simple answer is "Yes, he is" because Tarrant is a person who closely adheres to and acted upon the founding principles of the New Zealand state.
That is a reason why the New Zealand state would rather allow no further mention of Brenton Tarrant, his beliefs or his actions, but it is ultimately an untenable position.  We give people names to establish their identity, to recognise their worth as unique human beings and to assert their personal responsibility for their own actions.  Personal identity is an essential premise of our system of justice.   A society without names would be a society without individual worth or responsibility, a society of well or mal-functioning machines.
Jacinda almost certainly knows this, and she will continue to use Brenton Tarrant's name in her private discussions with Rebecca Kitteridge, Andrew Hampton, Mike Bush, Andrew Little and Winston Peters.   She just will not use the name in conversations with the public.   We will not hear the name from her because some of those in government believe that it is not for us to hear all the facts and to make rational, informed judgements about the roles of all those directly or indirectly involved in the Al Noor massacre.   The implication is that all that should be left to the government, the security services and the police - the very people who were trusted, but failed, to avert atrocities of this kind.
The refusal to name Tarrant (meaning he must be referred to as "the terrorist", "the murderer" or "the perpetrator") also goes against the presumption of innocence.   That may seem academic in the circumstances, and even offensive to those who have already come to a judgement on his guilt, but the principle of the presumption of innocence sits at the heart of open justice and the rule of law.  Abandon that, and you have abandoned an independent judicial system in favour of the arbitrary authority of state power.
Rule of law and an open system of justice requires that an accused be named and identified, and that the public should be able to hear all the evidence and form their own judgements.   If Tarrant is allowed to come to public trial (which is by no means certain) his name will be in the public domain, even if the media commonly and quite properly refer to him as "the accused".
Jacinda's case for "denying the killer a name" and thereby departing from the principles and conventions of a free, responsible society is that to name Tarrant would be to give him "the notoriety he seeks".   This claim is based on knowledge that she claims to possess but of which the public remains ignorant.
It may be assumed that Tarrant seeks fame or notoriety, but the public do not know that for a fact, and because the state has banned his manifesto, the public is unable to come to an informed decision on that point.   Right now it is not a known fact, and there is at least some evidence to contradict that particular claim about his motivations - primary or otherwise.
In any case, it should make no difference to us what Brenton Tarrant might want.   We each have our own principles, our own standards of conduct and our own sense of decency.  Tarrant may be seeking infamy but we only seek justice.  If in our pursuit of justice he acquires notoriety, then so be it.   It should not matter to us.  His notoriety will only matter to us, it will only hurt us, be as salt in our wounds, if for some reason we fail to bring him to justice.
It is important to recognise and remember that in adhering to the presumption of innocence, open justice and the rule of law we do not in any way condone criminality, and to suggest that we cannot have open justice without glorifying the criminal is dangerously mischievous.
The government might respond by saying that while most of the public can respond to Tarrant's actions in a measured and responsible way, there will be a certain number who will be inspired to emulate the monstruous crime with which he has been charged in order to obtain the same notoriety, and that if Tarrant is not named there will be less reason or motive for them to do so.  The argument goes that Tarrant copied Breivik because Breivik became notorious, and others will in turn copy Tarrant for the same reason.  Even if that is true (it is far from proven) it misses the point.   These crimes have either social or political origins which do not disappear when the names of the perpetrators are erased from the pages of history, and so long as the conditions continue to exist there is the chance, even the probability of a de novo event - a similar act being by someone who believes that he is the first to have conceived of and executed such a crime.
If there are and remain among us a number of persons who will conduct a massacre of innocents in order to achieve infamy, then we have a serious problem that must be addressed intelligently, directly and urgently.   We must think about what would create this particular mentality in a particular kind of society, and I can think of no better place to start our investigations than with the accused murderer.
Mass murder is  not a feature of all societies.   It figures prominently in some, and not at all in others.   So it will do us no good to go into denial, to refuse to name the accused person, and to refuse to allow public examination of his expressed motives for and rationalisation of his actions.
The New Zealand state's ban on Tarrant's "manifesto" is no less troubling than the decision to "deny the killer a name".  It draws a curtain over Tarrant's history, motives, intentions and beliefs, and thereby allows a false narrative to take hold upon the public.  It helps to obscure and obstruct understanding of the very real and immediate dangers which we face from people like Tarrant and from the ideology which he espouses.
It is true that the manifesto contains information that embarrasses certain elements in the state, and which brings little comfort to either the "right" or the "left" of politics.  The work has been suppressed in order to protect the state - not to protect the people.   Both in this particular case, and as an unwelcome precedent , the Censor's ban on possessing, circulating or publishing Tarrant's manifesto will be strongly resisted by responsible members of a free society.
In 1961 Adolf Eichman was put on trial for his part in the holocaust, the Nazi "Final Solution of the Jewish problem".   He was convicted and hanged, but the lasting benefit from his trial, the one thing that really mattered in the end, was the way that it was recorded by a German Jewish intellectual. Hannah Arendt wrote of the anatomy of evil as revealed in the person of Adolf Eichmann and the ideology of national socialism.  She did so in a way that was honest and compelling, at times intensely passionate and at others calmly dispassionate. She was not always kind to the Jewish state but now her name endures when both Eichmann and his prosecutors have been largely forgotten.
The New Zealand government seems set on a course which would not permit such a person as Hannah Arendt to look into and explain the anatomy of evil, to explain the pathology, to speculate upon its causes, and thereby allow us the means to prevent its recurrence.

Political censorship ramped up in wake of Al Noor massacre.

Officially, and in normal times, New Zealand has no system of political censorship.  But in reality even when a state of emergency is not in force the New Zealand government is able to effectively control what information can make its way through the mass media into the public domain.  This can be seen in the recent cases of the "security chiefs' memo" and the abduction of Louisa Akavi.
Uniquely among western states, the New Zealand government, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Security Intelligence Service are able to direct what the mass media can publish.  This may be done either formally (using instruments such as "D notices" and the Terrorist Event Media Protocols) or more commonly through informal approachs to media managers, editors and senior journalists.
Institutional, historical and cultural factors that facilitate this degree of political control over the media include the concentration of ownership and control within the New Zealand mass media, the legacy of restrictive political censorship laws dating from before the Second World War and the concept of sovereign authority as it applies to New Zealand .
The extraordinary concentration of media ownership and control in New Zealand means that a group of six people (two representing the state-owned media and four from private media organisations) who meet under the Orwellian name of the "Media Freedom Committee" are able to dictate in advance how the trial of Brenton Tarrant (presuming that there is to be a trial) shall be reported.
In a free market this would be deemed "anti-competitive behaviour".   In a truly democratic society it would be seen as a gross transgression of the  principle of a free press.   Which implies that New Zealand lacks both a free market and a free press.
The Prime Minister praises the media for its "responsibility" and the "Media Freedom Committee" commits itself to "report ... responsibly".   That begs the question "To whom or to what are they ultimately responsible?".   That question has to be answered with regard to the cultural and political context.   Within the Realm of New Zealand Queen Elizabeth is sovereign and therefore in theory the personnel and institutions of government and ultimately the press and the public are responsible to her.   However in practice responsibility to the Crown translates into responsibility to those institutions of government which most closely express the ethos of the Crown, notably the New Zealand Defence Force, the New Zealand Police and the SIS.   Politicians and the media defer to the SIS in particular.   Many senior journalists, especially investigative journalists, are embedded in the "New Zealand Intelligence Community" which comprises the SIS and GCSB and which is presided over by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.   In practice "responsible journalism" in New Zealand reduces to journalism which serves the interests of the state security services.
However facts or opinions which are effectively suppressed within New Zealand can and do emerge through the foreign media.   Thus Louisa Akavi's plight was revealed through the New York Times before finally and belatedly being taken up by New Zealand newspapers and broadcasters, while the "security chiefs' memo" was publicized through the Financial Times of London.
Justifications may be offered for suppression orders.   In the Akavi case, the excuse put up by the government  was that Akavi's family had been told by her captors that she would be killed if her abduction became public knowledge.  Any reasonable person, journalist or member of the public, who accepted that claim at face value would not hesitate to comply with the suppression "request", and the New Zealand media did in fact absolutely comply for five years until compliance was no longer a credible option.
Yet there has not been independent verification of the claimed danger to Akavi's life as a result of publication and given that
(1) the New Zealand government and the fourth estate as well as Akavi's family had knowledge of the abduction and
(2) the normal modus operandi of the Islamic State captors is to court publicity,
then the claim that ISIS would respond to publicity by executing their hostage is inherently suspect.
Political censorship in New Zealand always purports to be necessary for reasons of "public safety".   The draconian political censorship of the mid-twentieth century was mandated by the "Public Safety Conservation Act" of 1932, and subsequent censorship, such as the ban on Islamic State propaganda and most recently the Chief Censor's ban on Brenton Tarrant's "Great Replacement" manifesto are also predicated on supposed concerns about public safety.
Those concerns may be real but they are not the reason for the imposition of political censorship in New Zealand.   The state wishes to maintain a single inherently implausible narrative concerning the nature of New Zealand society, New Zealand's place in the world and its historical military involvements, and it cannot do that so long as groups such as ISIS, and individuals including Brenton Tarrant, are able to put their own narratives before the New Zealand public.
In broad terms, the government case is that New Zealand is a happily diverse and tolerant multi-cultural society which has an independent, democratically responsible government and which acts as an honest broker in world affairs and a peace-keeper in situations of conflict and that as a consequence its people are at low risk of attack from nationalists or religious fundamentalists of any colour.
The contrasting view of ISIS and others is that New Zealand is a client state of British and American imperialism which took part in the 1915-18 invasions of the Muslim nations of Turkey, Palestine and Iraq, helped to uphold decades of bloody and brutal British rule in Central Asia and the Middle East, then joined in the re-invasion of the Muslim lands by United States and its western allies in the current century.
The principal difference between the ISIS and Tarrant narratives is that while ISIS believes New Zealand should be dissuaded from continuing on its historical course, Tarrant suggests New Zealand should pursue that course with ever greater vigour, consistency and ruthlessness.
These conflicting narratives, despite their inherent deficiencies, are a serious challenge to the official narrative of the New Zealand state.
Political censorship in New Zealand is normally carried out with the voluntary collaboration of mass media organisations.   However we have now entered a coercive phase in which the Chief Censor, the New Zealand Police, the judiciary and the Corrections Department are able to severely punish those who offer or receive through independent channels an alternative to the official narrative of the New Zealand state.  This has been done by taking advantage of, bending, abusing or on occasion breaching existing New Zealand legislation such as the Films, Video and Publications Act 1993.
The general trend has been to depart from rule of law considerations and the protection of democratic rights, and to move towards arbitrary decisions based on the supposed "expert judgement" of the Chief Censor, the discretion allowed to the New Zealand Police and the discretionary powers of judicial officers.
The government ban on publication of Tarrant's manifesto is a case in point.   In the immediate aftermath of the Al Noor massacre government set the direction of the state and the media by demanding that Tarrant's name should not be published.   It then approached the Chief Censor with a view to having his manifesto banned, but the normal and proper legal process under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Films, Video and Publications Act  which provides for the right of public submission, was not followed.
"I took the step of 'calling in' this video ... as a mechanism to fast-track the classification process," said the Chief Censor, David Shanks.   Yet the Act does not provide a "fast-track" for the Chief Censor.   In the terms of the FVPA "calling in" a publication actually adds an extra step at the beginning of the classification process and does not give the Chief Censor license to omit or over-ride any of the normal checks and balances on his powers.   In dispensing with those checks and balances he therefore acted in wanton disregard of the Act which he is trusted to administer.
Tarrant himself had a legal right to make submissions before his own publication was classified as objectionable and therefore subject to ban.   The Chief Censor got around this difficulty by claiming that it was not known if the "person" taken into police custody (Tarrant) was actually the same "person" who authored  the document (Tarrant).   This bureaucratic subterfuge was made possible by the Prime Minister's earlier declaration that Tarrant should not be named.   The Chief Censor then declared that there was no way of knowing whether the "person in custody" in Christchurch (Tarrant) was the same person who had an "interest in the publication (being an interest as owner, maker, distributor, or publisher of the publication)" (Tarrant) and who therefore had a legal right to make submissions.
The proper legal process for banning a publication in New Zealand is important, because although there are very few checks, balances and restraints upon the Chief Censor there are some.
Firstly, the legislation assumes that the Chief Censor will not normally be actively searching out material in bookshops, newstands or on-line.   Parliament was clearly of the opinion that would be unseemly.  The Chief Censor's proper role is to be a judge of cases which are brought before him by the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary of Internal Affairs or, in certain circumstances a member of the public.   In this way he is able to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality, and is obstructed from assuming the role of an over-zealous and all-powerful censor of public morals and political opinions.
However in the case of the "Great Replacement" the Chief Censor was pro-active rather than judicial.  He alleged that the classification (banning) of "The Great Replacement" was a matter of "urgency".   Yet the Act makes no mention of urgency.   Urgency is not a consideration for the law.    Furthermore, in citing "urgency", the Chief Censor revealed that he had effectively predetermined the outcome of his investigation.  If the classification was urgent, it must be that the publication had already been deemed objectionable.   There were no commercial or other imperatives on Tarrant's part that would have made classification a matter of urgency.
The Chief Censor's decision was neither impartial nor judicial.  It was predetermined and  driven by the concerns of government which saw its political narrative about to unravel in a very ugly and embarrassing way with the publication of Tarrant's manifesto.
The official narrative is that New Zealand is a tolerant, diverse and harmonious multi-cultural society.   Yet the New Zealand state is part of the ethno-nationalist alliance of the "white commonwealth" countries which maintain the British monarch as their head of state, and the New Zealand security forces (the NZDF, NZSIS and GCSB) belong to the broader ethno-nationalist Five Eyes Alliance which also includes the United States of America.
Thus the British-Australian ethno-nationalist extremist Brenton Tarrant was able to portray himself as a friend of the New Zealand state who would not fire upon the security forces but would kill without compunction non-Europeans and all those who did not subscribe to the ethno-nationalist doctrines which remain tenets of faith for the New Zealand state security apparatus.
The New Zealand public was banned from reading Tarrant's manifesto because it brings into the open the racial creed of the New Zealand security forces, and the principle of British supremacy on which the state is founded, while exposing the duplicity of the colonial government's purported "multiculturalism".   The New Zealand government fears what will happen when its people start making connections between the Tirgiran and Al Noor massacres or when they start to seriously question the race basis of the New Zealand state.
The question may still be asked "Even though the ban was put in place with ulterior motives and in contempt of due process, could it still be justified on the grounds of protecting public safety?"
I do not believe that it can.   State-sponsored ignorance constitutes the greatest danger for the New Zealand public.  Ignorance about their own history and the causes of the New Zealand wars which is an off-limits topic in New Zealand schools.   Ignorance about the reasons for New Zealand's involvement in later African, European and Middle Eastern wars.   Ignorance of the atrocities perpetrated by New Zealand troops in Palestine and Afghanistan.  Ignorance about the political agenda of the Five Eyes alliance, and extremist Five Eyes paramilitary operatives such as Brenton Tarrant.
Lifting the lid on this imperial cesspit will not expose us to any danger which is not already present.   It will only help to clear the air, and allow us a way forward.
The Chief Censor acknowledges that most of us would not follow Tarrant into murder and mayhem as a result of reading his manifesto, but suggests that a significant minority among us would or could.
There is no justification for removing the rights of a people simply because in the perception of the Chief Censor some among them have a potential for evil.
How many New Zealanders does the Chief Censor believe will commit atrocities as a result of reading Tarrant's manifesto?  Ten thousand?  One thousand?  One hundred?  Does he have any reason to believe that so many as ten would do so?  If he does have information to suggest that ten might be so inclined, then it becomes a relatively easy matter for the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand public to deal with those individuals.  If the number is in the thousands, then we have a problem beyond the reach of any agency of government, but I do not believe that is the case, and if it was the case then banning "The Great Replacement" would not help a jot to avert catastrophe.
If we have the capacity for sustained, widespread and unchecked political, ethnic or religious violence in this country, then it is all the more reason why we need to have an open public discussion on the ideas articulated by Tarrant many of which are fundamental to the Five Eyes alliance and the policies of the New Zealand state.
We need to know that despite certain important differences, Tarrant characterises himself as a friend of the New Zealand state and an adherent of the Five Eyes philosophy.
Al Noor was not New Zealand's first massacre of innocents.   It is one of many, some carried out within these islands and others in far-flung corners of the world such as Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq and it will not be the last unless we address the philosophies and the historical legacy which drives sections of the New Zealand state to commit such atrocities.   It would have been unthinkable for Prime Minister Ardern to say "We are him" rather than "They are us", yet it would have been more profoundly truthful.
There may be more atrocities.   There may be "copy-cat" killings of Muslims and there may be reprisals, but if there are, they will not be the result of someone reading and being inspired by Tarrant's political ideas.  They will be the result of someone choosing to either imitate or retaliate against his acts which are now a fact of history and the reality of which cannot be denied or suppressed.
The road that the New Zealand state is trying to drive us down will not make us safe, or keep us safe.  It will do the exact opposite.
The only way forward is respect for the truth, acknowledgement of our people's right to know, and abandonment of the vain attempt to suppress every line of thought which conflicts with the government's own deeply flawed narrative about our place in the world.
Suppression of opinion will give rise to ignorance, frustration and rage which will only fuel further violence.   The New Zealand government, emboldened by its extraordinary success in managing mainstream domestic media, and dismayed by the ability of the internet to undermine and even defeat its system of censorship, has now taken the fore among world states in calling for greater state control of social media.   That demand should also be resisted as dangerous and misguided.   It can only serve to aggravate the conditions which give rise to and serve as justification for extremist political violence.

21 February 2018

The Open Ballot

The following comment failed to pass moderation on Chris Trotter's "Bowalley Road" (  I am mystified as to why Chris may have found my comment objectionable, and Chris is not saying.

The question I sought to address which came from "Victor" read:

"Victor said...
Geoff Fischer

The advantages of a secret ballot are obvious and I can't think what advantages there would be to abandoning it.  What advantages might you suggest might come from doing so?"

My response was:

The two chief objections to the secret ballot are that it

1. Raises the possibility of electoral fraud, and, what may be worse, allows suspicions or allegations of electoral fraud to fester to the detriment of political and social stability.  Prior to the US Presidential election Donald Trump was making allegations of fraud and a rigged election.  How might his supporters have reacted if the electoral college vote had not gone his way?   By comparison, the use of the open vote in recent elections in Nigeria seems to have left no room for allegations of fraud, "stolen" or "rigged" elections or other such de-stabilizing claims.   In other nations the secret ballot provides a curtain of secrecy behind which corrupt elements can indeed corrupt the electoral process.   An open ballot almost absolutely assures the integrity of the electoral system, even to the extent of allowing clarification of the intention behind informal or incorrectly completed ballot papers, the replacement of lost, damaged or inadvertently destroyed papers, or the recovery of inadvertently corrupted election data.

2. Inhibits genuine public participation in the political process
The end of the secret ballot would mark the political coming of age of ordinary people.   Under an open ballot they would genuinely "have a voice" which could be heard by family, friends, neighbours and workmates.   New Zealanders are told that they "have a voice" when they step into a voting booth and mark a piece of paper out of sight and out of hearing of every other living soul.  But do they really?  Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear?   "Having a voice" in the secret ballot is a figure of speech designed to paper over the gap between the open,active, visible role of the political candidates and the secret, passive, inert and increasingly ineffectual role of the voters.  We live in a world where personality empowers, and anonymity disempowers.  New Zealanders should reflect on that whenever they comment anonymously on blogs, or vote secretly in a parliamentary election.   Their anonymity holds them forever in subjection to those who genuinely have a voice and are not afraid to use it.

An open ballot would encourage some people to pause and think deeply before voting.  A US voter once told me that he was the only American who ever voted for disgraced President Richard Nixon.  What he meant was that he was one of the few prepared to take personal responsibility for having misjudged the character of the man who he had elected to be President of the United States. His was a brave and honorable stand.  Unlike too many of his compatriots, he was not going to hide behind the secret ballot.   Voters need to think about their responsibilities, and responsibility is not consistent with a culture of secrecy.

Politicians do not cast secret votes in the Houses of Parliament or Congress and there is no good reason why the popular vote should be conducted in secret.  We all need to have the courage of our political convictions, and if we are afraid of the consequences of having our political allegiances known to the world there is something badly wrong in ourselves or in our society.  Either way, we should address that problem, rather than hiding it away behind the secret ballot.

The secret ballot is not intrinsic to democracy.   In ancient Greece it was used only in special circumstances (such as a motion to ostracize).  It was first adopted on a national scale in France in 1795 following the republican revolution, in Britain and New Zealand around 1870 and more gradually in the United States over the period from the 1890s through to 1950.  So it is an innovation rather than an essential element of the democratic system.  There is nothing natural about it, and very little good in it.   At best it is a regrettable response to a deplorable social situation in which, for whatever reason, people are afraid to take responsibility for their own political decisions, the persons and the policies that they do in fact seek to impose, through the secret ballot, on every other member of society.

If we were to do away with the secret ballot we would, in effect be saying that we are a mature, tolerant and free society in which people can express political opinions without fear of retribution.   Even if we have not yet reached that point, we need to move towards it, and the open ballot would be a significant step in the right direction.

6 January 2018

What is the SIS up to now? or Jian Yang, the New Zealand Dreyfus

The short answer to the question above, "What is the SIS up to now?" is that the SIS in collaboration with the GCSB has attempted to:

* Unseat an elected Member of Parliament
* Incite anti-Chinese sentiment, and public suspicion towards the New Zealand Chinese community
* Dictate the foreign policy of the Labour-led government.

You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to appreciate the implications of this sort of political interference by a secret department of state. In constitutional theory, the people elect Members of Parliament, Parliament elects a government, and the government determines state policy and directs the security services. Over the past six months the SIS has attempted to turn that model on its head. The service believes that it can dictate policy to the new Labour-led government, unseat National list Member of Parliament Jian Yang, engage in a political campaign against the Peoples Republic of China, and incite public suspicion of the New Zealand Chinese community. Jian Yang - click here to read more

2 July 2017

How the New Zealand media is skirting around the facts about Peter Thiel, and why.

New Zealand journalist Max Nippert tripped over the Peter Thiel citizenship story while investigating Thiel's acquisition of a block of land at Wanaka without Overseas Investment Office approval - which Thiel did not need, since he is a New Zealand citizen, and has been, secretly, for the past six years.  Nippert then asked how Thiel obtained citizenship, and the answer was by exercise of ministerial discretion in 2011 by the then Minister of Internal Affairs Nathan Guy.   Further information was sought from the Department of Internal Affairs, which refused to release certain information relating to Thiel's citizenship until compelled to do so by the Ombudsman.  That subsequently released information showed that Thiel had spent just 12 days in New Zealand prior to being granted citizenship, whereas 1350 days residence is normally required as a prerequisite to citizenship.

The overall response of the media has been to suggest that this is just another case of a wealthy foreigner "buying" New Zealand citizenship from a compliant Minister.  The New Zealand public is inclined to accept an explanation that fits with the general perception of a colonial government which regularly and as a matter of course bows to the will of wealthy foreigners.  The government itself is also relieved to see the narrative taking that course, because the truth about Peter Thiel's citizenship would be far more damaging, was it allowed to see light of day.

The fact is that Thiel's citizenship has only a peripheral relationship to his wealth.  He was not granted citizenship in such extraordinary circumstances because he is wealthy, made investments in New Zealand companies, has connections in Silicon Valley, offered to promote New Zealand interests, or donated a million dollars to the Christchurch rebuild.  It cannot even be said with any certainty that he sought or seriously wanted New Zealand citizenship for his own sake.

The explanation for Thiel's citizenship lies with his company Palantir Technologies and its association with the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau.  Palantir was founded by Thiel with financial backing from the United States Central Intelligence Agency, and its business is mass surveillance of civil society.   It collects, sorts and analyses huge amounts of data from computer and mobile device communications in the United States, Britain and New Zealand and then makes that data and analysis available to the CIA and National Security Agency in the United States, where it is used to select individuals who should be targetted for assassination under various CIA counter-terrorist programmes.   Information provided by Palantir has almost certainly been used to identify New Zealand citizens for execution by US forces operating in the middle east, north Africa or central Asia.

Thiel's connections to the New Zealand government and the GCSB involvement with Palantir in wholesale indiscriminate spying upon the New Zealand public on behalf the CIA have been kept secret with the help of the politically compliant mass media.  He was granted citizenship so as to facilitate on-going Palantir operations within this country, which appear to be based around a massive high security and top secret data surveillance centre located in East Tamaki, Auckland.   Construction of this facility began during the term of the Helen Clark Labour government, and was completed in 2009 under Prime Minister John Key.

However Thiel is not a politically neutral collector of intelligence.  He is a close political associate of US President Donald Trump, and like the Marxist Cheryl Gwyn, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who occupies the highest rank in the security and intelligence apparatus of the New Zealand state, he is deeply hostile to democratic systems of government.  He is also seriously misogynistic - which presumably Ms Gwyn is not.

In Thiel's own words " I remain committed authentic human freedom ...   But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible ... Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron".

However both the Marxist Cheryl Gwyn, and the lesbian feminist Una Jagose who headed the New Zealand GCSB, are happy enough to work with Thiel because all three share the same ultimate objective of a technologically driven totalitarian social order which will surpass in efficiency and effectiveness anything that might have been possible in the era of the NKVD, KGB or Gestapo.

Peter Thiel believes in "freedom" (as did Adolf Hitler) but (again like Adolf Hitler) he adheres to a rather narrow understanding of the meaning of freedom, namely the freedom conveyed by the privilege of wealth.  He explicitly does not believe in democracy, and he has not  been idle in his efforts to thwart, undermine and ultimately destroy the democratic system in the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.  The  information amassed by Palantir (along with a good share of Thiel's private wealth) was used to support Donald Trump's successful bid for the US Presidency, and is also passed on to intelligence agencies in the United States (CIA), the United Kingdom (GCHQ), and New Zealand (GCSB).   So Thiel and Palantir are expressive of a profoundly anti-democratic movement operating at both the political and deep state levels of the "5 Eyes" alliance comprising the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Britain.

When  Nathan Guy says "I completely agreed with officials at the time that he should be granted citizenship, I backed the decision in 2011 and I back the decision now." he does not expect us to accept that he made the "right" decision.   He does not particularly mind if New Zealanders believe it was the "wrong" decision, so long as they do not know the real reasons behind the decision.   If the full story about Thiel and Palantir were to come out it would alert at least some New Zealanders as to how perilously close we have approached to the abyss of fascism.

12 May 2017

"Hit and Run"

There should have been no surprise at the reaction of the New Zealand government to the allegations published in the book "Hit and Run" authored by Nicky Hager and respected journalist Jon Stephenson.  Hager and Stephenson recounted how in 2010 New Zealand troops conducted a reprisal raid on two Afghan villages, killing a number of civilians including an infant girl, following the death of a New Zealand soldier in an attack from Afghan insurgents.

Despite the evidence of war crimes, and calls for an inquiry by prominent lawyers, journalists and at least one retired military officer, the New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand government have ruled out any inquiry into the reprisal raid and the ensuing deaths of innocent villagers, on the curious grounds that Hager and Stephenson have failed to prove any particular individual guilty of war crimes.  The New Zealand government, for its part, refuses to make public its own records of the incident.   The government is following the same pattern of concealment, denial, bare-faced effrontery and outright lies that we saw in its handling of  the AKL304 affair.

Effectively the New Zealand state is saying to its people "I am innocent until proven guilty and I have a right to remain silent. You can't prove a thing".

That would be a legitimate, even if dubious, response from a citizen accused of a crime.  Yet the state is not a citizen.   It is the organ of law and justice and therefore must be above reproach.  The right to remain silent does not apply to the state.  Nor can the state claim innocence until proven guilty when the state itself determines the sufficiency of proof of guilt.   The state has privileges, powers and authority which oblige it adhere  to standards of transparency, integrity and lawfulness which go well beyond what would be demanded of an ordinary citizen.

If the state chooses to model its conduct on that of the most morally dubious of its subjects, then there is only one solution open to the people of New Zealand.   They must call the state to account through an alternative sovereign authority, one which adheres to higher standards.  They must establish a new state to replace the British colonial regime, a state which is honest, open, transparent and in every respect law abiding, and which will categorically dissociate itself from a history of war crimes stretching back to 1860   The realm of New Zealand, the New Zealand monarchy, is now clearly and irrefutably in a state of moral bankruptcy.   It must be overthrown.   There is no other way forward for our people, no other way out of the moral morass into which this state has led us.

12 May 2017

Who represented pakeha in the Treaty of Waitangi?

Was it the British crown? The Maori chiefs?  Or was there no one to represent Pakeha?

The argument for the Crown is that the "Pakeha were British subjects".   However that certainly was not the case for all Pakeha resident in Aotearoa in the years leading up to 1840.   Some came from countries which either did not recognise or were not subject to British rule, such as the United States of America, France, other European countries, Ireland and South Asia.    In addition not all of those that came from Britain itself, or through the Australian colonies,  recognised the British crown.   In New Zealand these supposed "British subjects" were not literally subject to British law or the authority of the British crown, and they had no right of political representation in the British parliament.   Both in practice, and by choice, they were subject to the authority of the Maori chiefs, and it was to the chiefs that they went for protection, favour and redress of grievances.

Therefore the claim that the Crown represented Pakeha is a spurious racial argument which does not accord with the historical reality and which provides no way for progress in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha.  Maori never surrendered sovereignty.  Even those who signed the Treaty retained "tino rangatiratanga" - the right of absolute sovereignty.  Therefore as a matter of natural and historical justice sovereignty remains with Maori.   Pakeha who were subject to Maori sovereignty remain so, and within the context of Maori sovereignty they have the same rights as they had prior to the signing of the treaty, including the right of self- representation, the right to submit to the authority and protection of a chief of their own choosing, all the rights implied in tikanga Maori, and the implied rights asserted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ under which all iwi became one.  The rights of Pakeha under tikanga Maori far exceed any rights they would have had as subjects of the British Crown, which in the case of working class Pakeha amounted to no rights at all.

Before 1840, Pakeha could choose whether to accept the "sovereignty" of the British Crown, te rangatiratanga o nga iwi, or te rangatiratanga o Te Atua, and their choice was based on a mix of moral and pragmatic considerations.   Nothing changed after 6 February 1840.   Both Maori and Pakeha retain the right to unequivocally reject the claimed sovereignty of the Crown.   Not only that.  They should repudiate the British Crown, and they must repudiate the Crown if we are to escape the bloody legacy of two centuries of corruption, deceit, inequality, dispossession, environmental destruction, race and class conflict.

The sovereign pretensions of the British crown have caused a multitude of troubles while bringing no benefits.   By 1840 the wars between iwi had largely ceased through the working of te Rongopai.   All the wars since that time, which have been calamitous for both Maori and Pakeha - the wars in Tai Tokerau, Taranaki. Waikato, Tauranga a Moana, Tai Rawhiti, te Urewera and many other parts of the motu, the South African war, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the wars since.   These were all the work of the British Crown.  The Crown has pillaged and destroyed within Aotearoa and in the lands of other peoples all over the world.  It has deceived, oppressed and exploited our people.   It has brought inequality, corrupt government and European class divisions - all the things we can do without.

Does the British Crown represent Maori?  No more and no less than it represents Pakeha.   The Crown can fairly be said to represent all those who have given it voluntary allegiance.   The word "voluntary" is key.   It does not include those who have been coerced into swearing allegiance to the British monarch - new immigrants, members of parliament and so on.   Most of those who give allegiance to the Crown do so because they have been subject to some degree of coercion, being threatened with losing their right to citizenship, their right to sit in Parliament, or the right to have a job and a wage, if they refuse.   Since 1840 the Crown has represented some Maori and some Pakeha, but it does not represent either Maori or Pakeha as such.

Those who support British sovereignty - such as, for example, the New Zealand First political party and the Hobson's Pledge Trust - may do so with the best of intentions, in the belief that we need to be "He iwi tahi" if we are to survive and progress as a people.   That belief is well-founded, but the means which they propose to achieve unity are misguided, blinkered and counter-productive.    The sovereignty of the British monarch rests on racist and imperialist premises which sooner or later will give rise to violent conflict, if we allow her reign to continue.   For the past one hundred and seventy six years British sovereignty has divided us along lines of race and class, and it is totally unrealistic to expect that it can now be used to unite our a population which is more racially diverse and more unequal than at any other time in recent history.

11 May 2017

What is happening in France?  And how does it relate to our situation in Aotearoa?

Until the 1980s the  parliamentary parties of the left in the developed western world aimed to increase economic output by sponsoring the growth and development of national capital.   The New Zealand Labour Party did this by joining with the likes of Fletcher Construction to build state houses, pulp and paper mills, hydro-electric power stations and so on, and by building the infrastructure, such as roads, railways, air transport, electric power generation and reticulation, health and education facilities which were necessary to sustain an advanced economy dominated by national capital.   The same role was taken by the social democratic parties of western Europe, while in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, China, Korea, Indo-China and Cuba it fell to the lot of the Marxist parties to prepare their nations to compete effectively within the global capitalist economy.    Many workers suffered under the illusion that the destiny of the left was to overthrow capitalism and prepare the way for socialism.   History has shown us a different reality.  The task of the left as a progressive force was to build the necessary conditions for the development of capitalism in every country of the world.  When that task was done, the left parties handed the reins of power to capital.   The transition to pure capitalism took different forms however, depending on the conditions existing in particular countries.    In China and Asia the Communist Parties provided a vehicle for a relatively smooth transition to national capitalism.   In Russia and Europe the Marxist parties were dissolved, and the communist hierarchy set up new political instruments to manage the somewhat more chaotic transition to national capitalism.

In the western world the transition took a different turn.   The progressive social-democratic parties of the left abandoned their support of national capitalism in order to admit and embrace global capital.   In other words, while remaining capitalist parties, their political orientation shifted from nationalist to globalist or imperialist.   The rejection of national capitalism, and merging of the New Zealand economy into the system of global capitalism is what defined the economic reforms of the fourth Labour government of David Lange, Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Helen Clark and others, with the result that national capital assets (forests, farms, steel, pulp and paper mills, manufacturing plants) and infrastructure (banks, telecommunications, power generation, railways, airlines etc) were shifted into the hands of global capital.  Throughout the western world the parties of the left, both social democratic and Marxist, became the parties of global capital and were abandoned by the working classes, many of whom then turned to those parties of the right which remained loyal to the principle of national capitalism.  In New Zealand this lurch to the right by workers who felt deserted by the left favoured the New Zealand First party, which drew a significant share of Maori and working class support in the aftermath of the left's dramatic switch of allegiance from national to global capital.

The same pattern was repeated around the world, with the left opting for global over national capital, and the working classes turning to the parties of the right, the national capitalist parties, as the ruthless brutality of global capital became more evident to all, and as global capitalism had a progressively severe impact on the lives of a significant proportion of the working class.  The left deplores this working class turn to the right as "reactionary", which indeed it is, but an entirely understandable reaction.  In New Zealand Winston Peters and New Zealand First, in Britain the National Front and Nigel Farage, in France the National Front and Marine le Pen and in the United States Donald Trump were all able to capitalise on the disillusionment of the working class with the system of global capitalism imposed by the parties of the left.  The left in New Zealand is now solidly at one with global capitalism.  A feminist/Marxist triumvirate led by Cheryl Gwyn, Una Jagose, Rebecca Kitteridge took control of the state security apparatus (SIS and GCSB) and just as global capital has assumed effective control of the New Zealand economy, so the system of administration has been taken over by those loyal to global capitalism, in many cases recent immigrants from Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States.

So what has happened in France?  Essentially the same phenomenon as in New Zealand, but delayed thirty years by the greater strength and sophisticalion of national capitalism in France.  The left candidate in the presidential election, Emmanuel Macron, who is an enthusiastic supporter of global capital, has won an apparently resounding victory with two thirds of the votes cast, leaving only one third for his right wing opponent Marine le Pen.   Yet only 75% of registered electors actually voted, and millions of votes were spoiled in protest at the choices offered, meaning that the real participation rate was only 65% of registered voters and forty percent of  those who did vote for Macron said that they did so only to stop le Pen.  It was a hollow victory for Macron.  France may be opened to the tender mercies of  global capital, but the people of France did not knowingly vote for that outcome, just as the people of New Zealand did not knowingly choose global capital when they elected a left Labour government in order to bring down the national capitalist administration of Robert Muldoon.

Even though global capital has won a victory in France, with cheers resounding through Europe and among the financial elite around the world, the French working class is clearly unimpressed, and the socialist Macron will have difficulty imposing a strictly anti-working class regime of the kind demanded by global capital and instituted by the Labour Party in New Zealand decades back.  However we still face a real threat, revealed in how the French political establishment was able to suppress the revelations from the hacking of Macron's computer system in the days leading up to the election.  As in New Zealand, the security apparatus can control what appears in the traditional mass media as well as a large proportion of internet traffic.  Global capital now has effective control of the mass media in all developed western economies, and is demonstrating that control by the effectiveness of its censorship.  The ultimate aim is to be able to suppress all forms of "fake news".   Yet there is no need to suppress false reports, which can be easily discredited in an open society.  The mass media campaign against "fake news", supported by the likes of US President Donald Trump, is really an essential element of a wider campaign to suppress real facts and to block public access to serious analysis.  This is the point at which we have already arrived in New Zealand, where the media is even more tightly controlled than it is in France.  Yet it is a mistake for capital to suppose that in this way it will be able to maintain its global hegemony.  An increasingly large number of the public dislike and distrust the mass media, and as a consequence, newspapers, magazines, radio and television are in crisis, and even threatened with extinction.  The internet will face the same fate as it falls under the control of the GCSB.  The capitalist system as a whole will then be brought to the brink of collapse, because no society can survive long without a credible source of news and an open forum for vigorous political debate.

In this light the victory of the left, the standard bearer of global capital in France and around the world, is questionable.  Even if national capital surrenders to the demands of global capital, as it did in New Zealand, the French working class may remain defiant, and even if the working class acquieces, global capital now depends on people like Cheryl Gwyn, Andrew Hampton and Rebecca Kitteridge and their systems of state surveillance and control for its continued survival.  That, however, is an unsustainable model.   Notwithstanding the convenient threat presented by "Islamic extremism" a free people will not tolerate corrupt capitalist states which survive only through systems of social and political control pioneered in the Soviet Union.  Ultimately Gwyn, Jagose and Kitteridge will be seen not as inspiring successful women but as the very face of evil   The question is not whether capitalism will collapse as an economic order, but whether any kind of capitalism can survive within the present context of a corrupt, oppressive and unrepresentative system of government.

Why has the right become the "official opposition" to global capitalism, not only in France but throughout the world?

How have both the moderate, centrist left, and the radical Marxist left, been able to come to terms with global capital and even, with greater or lesser enthusiasm, throw their support behind it?

It is because both the left and global capitalism are progressive forces.   The values of the left are more consistent with the interests of global capitalism than with national capitalism, and national capitalism is a reactionary force because it remains tied to national cultures and religious systems which are basically national in character.  What are these progressive values of the left and global capital?   Primarily they are secularism; ethnic and gender equality in the market place; and the removal of a range of moral restrictions on personal conduct.  Secularism is the most important, even if the least talked about, because the other values are to a large degree subsumed within secularism.  Feminism, and to a lesser degree gay rights, have been essential to the expansion of global capital in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries because they have resulted in a dramatic increase in both the supply of labour and the demand for goods.   The labour market has effectively doubled in size, bringing greater efficiency and lower costs.  At the same time domestic production has become capitalist production.  Child care and aged care, the preparation of meals, clothing manufacture and repair, cleaning, gardening and housekeeping have been shifted from the realm of domestic production to market commodities.   Racial equality brought blacks out of subsistence living in the backblocks of the American south and into the factories and service industries of the north and west.   It brought Maori out of rural subsistence in Northland, Taranaki, Tai Rawhiti and Waikato and into the capitalist economies of Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington.   These people now produce and consume market commodities.  The left sought equality, and capitalism has delivered it.  The left is no enemy of capital, and global capital looks with kindness on the left.  Even on drug liberalisation capitalism and the left have reached a practical understanding.  Capital formerly opposed the legalisation of marijuana and other drugs, because it threatened the demand for capitalist commodities (tobacco and alcohol) and the integrity of labour supply.   Now that drug use is endemic, capital has more to gain by selling and taxing marijuana and cocaine than by protecting the trade in alcohol and tobacco.  The second concern remains but capital now understands that health costs may decrease and labour availability may increase, or at least remain stable, under a regime where all commonly used drugs have equal standing under the law.

It is this convergence of interests between global capital and the radical left which allowed the Marxist Cheryl Gwyn, the lesbian Una Jagose, and the feminist Rebecca Kitteridge to assume control of the security apparatus of the New Zealand state.  As leftists, these women not only support the cause of global capitalism, they will do everything necessary to protect it against the forces which threaten its continued hegemony.

From where does the opposition to capitalism come, if not from the left?   The answer is simple.  From religion, culture, nationalism and the parties of the right.    Religion restricts the demand for goods such as alcohol and tobacco, coffee, tea, movies, lotteries, travel, vehicles, surgical procedures - the list is as endless as the range of religious belief, but at the most fundamental level religion compromises demand for material goods, and not just on Sundays or holy days.   It also restricts the supply of labour, and again not just on Sundays or holy days.  Women are kept in the home, raising children.  Both genders spend time in worship and preaching, consuming few commodities or commercial services and producing none.  Not only do religious people in general eschew the market themselves, they encourage others to tollow their example.  Religion teaches that we have material obligations to our fellow human beings, which is a direct challenge to the capitalist doctrine that one best serves the market by serving oneself, and that the market in turn serves all.  Finally, and above all, religion avows that the Market is not God and God is not the Market.  These claims are anathema to secularism and capitalism.  Capitalism has of course created a religion in its own image, a form of religion that runs as a capitalist enterprise and preaches capitalist values.  However, it has not resolved, and cannot resolve, the contradiction between capitalism and authentic religion.  This simple contradiction between the interests of capital and the objects of religion explains why global capitalism has undertaken its fanatical, destructive and bloody war on Islamic fundamentalism, aka the "war on terror".

"Multi-cultural" global capitalism is also concerned about the dangers presented by the intersection of religion, culture and nationalism.  Cultural diversity in the context of capitalism is about the things that are neither peculiar nor significant.  Firstly, it is quite wrongly taken as being synonymous with ethnic diversity with which global capitalism has no problem at all.  In fact ethnic diversity is of positive benefit because it increases effective competition in the labour market  Then there is diversity in song and dance, the visual arts, creative writing, cinema and fashion which is actually of high utility to a capitalist economy.  Capital welcomes artistic diversity to the extent that it can become an element of an expanding market in goods and services.   There are however exceptions, such as the wearing of clothing which is designed to, or has the effect of, signifying disaffection from the capitalist system, for example Muslim hijab (banned in a number of European countries, and also in Turkey and Iran during their periods within the secular order of global capital) and "gang colours" banned in some parts of New Zealand.   There are clear  boundary lines between artistic and ethnic diversity, both of which are welcomed by capitalism, and culltural diversity which is shunned in reality.

Then there is the more complex issue of linguistic diversity, which capital may tolerate or even encourage in some circumstances, and discourage in others.   In general, language diversity is not helpful to the market.   People speaking different languages in the workplace reduce productivity and increase overheads.   People speaking different languages in the market place have a similar effect.   Language is an element of culture when it is spoken in the home, and from there carried to the workplace and marketplace.   The ultimate consequence of true cultural diversity in the form of linguistic diversity is that markets become fragmented, encouraging the development of national, rather than global, capitalism.   In effect global capitalism has sought, with a high degree of success, to make English the language of the work place and the market place at a global level.   On the other hand  "dead" languages, that is languages which are second languages, not required in the market or the work place, are no threat to the working of the market and may actually be incorporated into the market, lending it diversity of product, and becoming themselves products in the form of commercial instruction, publishing and entertainment.   ("Dead" religions have a similar impact.  The left wing secularists who disparage Christianity and Islam can be hightly sympathetic to animism and Maori traditional religion precisely because it does not constitute an ideological threat but can be safely incorporated into the market place.)  The crucial distinction between language as culture and language as commodity turns on whether it is spoken in homes as the first language.  If spoken in the home, it is culture.   If not, then it becomes a commodity.   That is why Maori was discouraged while it was spoken in homes, and is now tolerated, or even encouraged, when no longer spoken at home but  taught in schools and universities, displayed on television and published in print.

Multi-culturalism is a deception, precisely because culture is not found in the market place.  True culture is domestic and collective.  Culture is women raising children in the home in a particular and peculiar manner and using a peculiar language.   It is men working collectively or interacting socially in a non-market environment.  Capitalism, in taking men and more particularly women out of the domestic and collective sphere, and placing them in the marketplace, destroys the basis of culture.  Only the commercialized shadow of culture is left where the substance has gone.   Global capitalism is certainly multi-ethnic, but definitely not multi-cultural as it so often claims.

Apart from these finer distinctions between culture, language, arts and ethnicity, it is not hard to understand why the values of the left and the interests of global capitalism have converged to the point of union, and why the "conservative right" has emerged as the only meaningful source of opposition to global capital.   The point however is that the conservative right is in opposition because it is the minority, in fact a fairly small minority, probably no more than a quarter of the population in any developed western nation.   The overwhelming majority from both left and right, adheres to the liberal consensus which has emerged to support and sustain the interests of global capital.   Racial equality, freedom of movement of labour, market equality, gender equality and the free choice of consumer goods are principles which the majority regard as being noble and good.   The problem is that these values have also become inextricably associated with gross, sometimes obscene, economic inequality and a system of control which pervades every aspect of our lives.  The disgrace of the left is that it has not only submitted to the security apparatus of the state, it has taken the lead in extending surveillance and control to a historically unprecedented degree.  People like Cheryl Gwyn, Una Jagose and Rebecca Kitteridge, with impeccable left-wing credentials, are working hard to maintain a regime which has reduced half our population to a state of near desperation, while indulging every whim of a priivileged and amoral elite.  The left as a whole has failed itself, and it has failed the working class.   The source of its failure has been the bllind pursuit of material self-interest, a stubborn refusal to open its eyes to realities, to examine itself critically and to debate honestly.   It is no wonder that the right has emerged as the last recourse for the oppressed and disaffected, bringing with it the potential for a resurgence of fascism in the western world.

29 April 2017

The SAL / Chapman Tripp / NZSIS triangle.

(Adapted from a post to the Facebook page of the Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers Association.)

Our investigations into the AKL304 affair started with the secret "missing" Chapman Tripp invoices, later revealed to have been fudged or doctored, and ended with the revelation that the SIS has acted to cover up Chapman Tripp's role in a plot to provoke conflict and instability in the central North Island.

So what is going on here?   The explanation lies in the close connections between the Wellington based law firm of Chapman Tripp, the NZ Security Intelligence Service and the Socialist Action League (SAL).  The political method of the SAL was to provoke conflict in the industrial arena and also over Maori land issues.  About 1980 a young Auckland University law graduate named Cheryl Gwyn entered the ranks of the SAL and commenced work as a knife hand in the Whakatu freezing works.   Her real purpose for being there was not to cut up carcasses, but to provoke dissension between management and workers and thus to advance the cause of proletarian revolution.  Like the other members of her organisation, Gwyn was a dedicated revolutionary and Marxist of the Trotskyist tendency.  The Trotskyists, with ample experience in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe knew the value of having control over a nation's security apparatus, and so set out to replicate in New Zealand what had been achieved in the communist bloc.

In 1983 Gwyn departed the freezing works and resumed her previous life as a lawyer, working with the Wellington law firm Chapman Tripp.   Chapman Tripp was a recruitment and vetting agency for the SIS, assisted in covert operations and was a half-way house for personnel leaving the SIS in mid-career who needed to re-establish a "clean" work history with no reference to the spy agency. Through Chapman Tripp Gwyn met the lesbian feminist Una Jagose (whose brother was a Chapman Tripp partner), and feminist lawyer Rebecca Kitteridge (a Chapman Tripp staff member).  Gwyn, Jagose and Kitteridge later became the "three musketeers" of the New Zealand security intelligence system, with Kitteridge heading the SIS, Jagose in charge of the GCSB, and Gwyn presiding over the entire apparatus as Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.   By the time that Gwyn, Jagose and Kitteridge had risen to the top ranks of the security intelligence system, with a little help along the way from Governor-General Jerry Mataparae,  Marxists and crypto-Marxists were solidly in control at the SIS and GCSB, having the power that came from knowledge of the lives of private citizens, state servants, parliamentarians, Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister, John Key, himself.

The AKL304 plan was a classic Marxist provocation.  In 2009 Rotorua Regional Airport (RRAL) had plans to expand into an international airport, requiring runway extensions which encroached into Maori tribal land to the north and Pakeha residential properties to the south.  RRAL had settled its conflicts with Pakeha landowners, and was in negotiation with Maori landowners to resolve the remaining issues.  However the Marxists believed that a more aggressive approach from RRAL would provoke a violent response from the landowners and saw an opportunity to turn the situation to their advantage by provoking civil conflict.  George White, the General Manager of RRAL and a relatively recent arrival from South Africa, was told to commence litigation against the landowners, which would be undertaken by Chapman Tripp and fully funded by the SIS.

Three of the five member board of RRAL (Bill Kingi, Bob Martin and Mike McVicker) were kept in the dark about the litigation and the funding.  Of the remaining two board members, Reg Cook may not have known, but Neil Oppatt probably was privy to the broad intent of the plan.  The RRAL Finance Manager, Englishwoman Julie Rowe, was required to manage the financing of the litigation so as to keep it secret from Kingi, Martin and McVicker.  Kingi represented Maori interests and McVicker and Martin were both elected Councilors on Rotorua District Council.   Therefore none of these three could be trusted to keep the AKL304 affair secret, and had to be kept out of the loop.

Julie Rowe handled the financial side of the plan with quiet efficiency.  Since the litigation was in the name of RRAL, she received invoices from Chapman Tripp which were fudged or doctored to reach predetermined amounts.  The payments made to Chapman Tripp totalled $386,795, almost 15% of RRAL annual expenditure, and a considerable sum to keep hidden from the eyes of the RRAL Board, who had been told that the litigation was nothing to do with RRAL.  The Chapman Tripp bills were paid out of RRAL's Legal Expenses account over the period from mid 2009 until early 2010.  To prevent the payments coming to the notice of the Board and auditors it was necessary to clear the Legal Expenses Account by the end of the financial year, being 30 June 2010, and Rowe did this by asking the SIS to pay $610,055 into a Rotorua District Council (RDC) BNZ loan facility.  A person at RDC drew down the $610,155 on 29 June, and then immediately transferred  that amount to the Legal Expenses Account at RRAL through Julie Rowe, using a faked invoice number to get the payment through the RDC accounts system.  The next day, Julie Rowe realised that to balance her books she needed to invoice RDC for that amount, so raised a new invoice addressed to RDC for the $610,155 which had already been paid.  Because this invoice was a mere book balancing exercise at RRAL, it could not be sent to RDC at the time, although a fake copy of this invoice was sent to RDC some years later in an attempt to throw investigators off the trail of the suspicious 2010 payments.  The original Chapman Tripp invoices were also disposed of so as to leave no documentary trace of the RRAL involvement with Chapman Tripp.    The transactions did not appear on the RRAL balance sheet, and nor did they appear on the RDC books, because RDC was merely a conduit for money flowing from the SIS to RRAL.

That was the financial background to the affair. In the courtroom, and on the ground, matters were just as interesting.  The expectation, based on intelligence obtained by the SIS, was that one of the landowners who had concluded an amicable settlement with RRAL, which RRAL subsequently reneged on at the instigation of the SIS, would not mount a legal defence to the new litigation being brought by the SIS through RRAL, but would physically resist any attempt to appropriate property rights.  That exactly fitted the goal of the Marxists who were by now well entrenched in Chapman Tripp and the SIS.  By provoking violence they would create instability, and instability,conflict and violence would increase their influence over the political establishment.    In the event, however, against all expectations the landowner did choose to defend his case in court, and won against a team of 17 Chapman Tripp lawyers.

The Marxists in the SIS and Chapman Tripp were left in a quandary, and their response was extraordinary but very much in character. They mounted a fierce and sustained press campaign, accusing the landowner of "holding the city to ransom" in the hope that Rotorua residents would be provoked to violence against the landowner.  Then, in the absence of the landowner and in defiance of the court ruling they instructed a team to enter his property and begin to fell trees, anticipating an outbreak of violence on the owner's return.    None of these provocations worked.  The Marxists of the SAL had failed to provoke the violence they had so desperately sought, and could have reasonably anticipated.

The most successful aspect of AKL304 was the cover up that followed.  In this the "three musketeers" had the support of Rotorua Mayor Steve (Stephanie) Chadwick.  Chadwick had been a senior member of the Helen Clark Labour government which had brought Cheryl Gwyn into the highest rank of the state service, with close involvement in security and intelligence matters.   As a citizens' investigation uncovered more and more of the truth, Chadwick ordered Council staff not to cooperate in any enquiry into the AKL304 affair.   But by this stage the fudged Chapman Tripp invoices, the fake RRAL invoice to RDC, the forged copy of the actual invoice, and the BNZ loan facility had all come to public notice.  The false return which Julie Rowe had submitted to the Companies Office, and the false transaction trail which she had carefully laid down in the aftermath of the affair, had been uncovered.  The cover up had failed, as the original provocation had failed.

Yet all is not well.  Marxists remain in control of the New Zealand security intelligence system.  Their capacity to pervert the future development of New Zealand society is immense.   By making home ownership unaffordable for many, the political establishment has already undermined New Zealand as a property owning democracy.   Following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, they are remorselessly putting paid to the concept of the family farm, and making full time wage labour the obligatory norm for New Zealand mothers, encouraging abortion and generally degrading the institution of the family.  They have put in place a deliberate and calculated strategy to reduce New Zealand labour rates to third world levels.  Most concerning of all, they are bent on creating a system of surveillance and control run along the lines of the East German Stasi and the Soviet KGB and GPU, but with the addition of state of the art enormously powerful electronic technologies under the control of Una Jagose.

From the 1980s onwards the interests of revolutionary Marxism and the New Zealand state converged. As Gwyn herself has observed, the principles and ideals of revolutionary Marxism are congruent with the interests of the state in the era of feminism, secularism and global capitalism.  However, in allowing Marxists to take over the state security apparatus New Zealanders have made a monumental error of judgement which will have catastrophic consequences.

 To learn more about the AKL304 affair click here

28 February 2017


From the time they left their ancestral Eden, human beings have been migrants.  They have also been territorial as illustrated in the phrase "tangata whenua".   What happens when migrants come into contact with tangata whenua?   That depends on the tikanga of the respective parties.   When Tuhourangi lost their lands at Te Wairoa to the Tarawera eruption in 1886 Ngati Whakaue made them welcome and gave land at Ngapuna where they could re-establish themselves, and where many remain to this day.   The tikanga that applied was manaakitanga - hospitality to the visitor or stranger - which may be almost as old as the countervailing territorial instinct.   That happy migration arrangement between Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue may have owed something to the fact that the the two tribes were closely related within the Arawa waka, but more fundamentally the hospitality of Ngati Whakaue was extended because both Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue subscribed to the tikanga of manaakitanga. Immigration - click here to read more

11 February 2017

Conversation with Bryan Crump

On 30 January I spoke with Bryan Crump on RNZ National's "Nights" programme on the subject of the New Zealand wars and  republicanism.   When Bryan asked me what kind of a indigenous political system I would like in place of the British monarchy I suggested a Confederation of the kind that existed in embryo prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and which provided the organisational basis of the kingitanga.   That bald statement raises many questions and may provoke concerns - as it did for Bryan - so I will explain here exactly what I am envisaging.

When a people contemplate a new political constitution they have a number of options.  One is to modify their existing system, to greater or lesser degree.   Another is to adopt a model from another realm.    A third is to start from scratch, with a blank slate and construct a completely new model of government.   The first option is safe but unexciting, the second risks a system unsuited to local conditions and is suggestive of political and social immaturity, while the last, with all its exciting possibilities, is fraught with the perils of naive idealism.   The best starting point for a new constitution is among the institutions which presently exist within society, but not necessarily the official institutions of formal government.    Specifically, the iwi system could provide the model and the genesis of a new system, a Confederation of Iwi such as the Chiefs of the United Tribes aspired to in the Declaration of Independence of 1835, and which various Maori movements, such as Kotahitanga and the Kingitanga, have strugged to realize through the succeeding centuries.

The immediate question is "How could such a system include groups other than Maori?  Would there be a place for the "new" ethnic minority groups of Chinese, Indian, South African and other immigrants?".   The answer to that is that it obviously must, and clearly could.   The second question is "How could such a primitive tribal system provide for the needs of a modern technological society?".   The answer is that the system, as it exists, is far from primitive, and, this may surprise some, it could provide a more effective system of government than the current western European model, which is on the verge of collapse throughout Europe, the Americas and New Zealand.   One could maintain that Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States shows that the system still works, that the people have a voice and can determine the course of government.   Yet at the same time we need to recognise that these aberrant expressions of the popular will arise out of desperation and disillusionment with the system.

In essence a Confederation of Peoples of Aotearoa would employ a process of continuous and open election  In place of the ballot box and "virtual cantons" in place of geographical electorates or the "electorate at large" of the party vote.    There would be no limit on the number or size of such cantons, and they would be constituted by the people themselves rather than by a commission of state.    An iwi could set itself up as a political entity, but so could a hapu or whanau, a church or congregation, an ethnic group, a trade union or work force, a town or local neighbourhood, a gang, political party or a sporting code.    Every citizen could choose to exercise rights of citizenship through one selected virtual canton (even while sitting in others).   Therefore he or she would need to choose whether to function primarily as a member of a political organisation, a local community, and industrial organisation, and would, for example, have to choose one iwi over another as a vehicle of citizenship and would need to formally join that canton (or set up a new canton if no existing canton was judged satisfactory to their interests and affiliations).   The advantages of such a system is that it would provide community of interest and real, direct, un-mediated relations between people and leaders, and out of that, genuine involvement.    Hapu could come together, as they do, in iwi.   Political parties could come together, as they do, in coalitions of more or less closely related political persuasions.  Ethnic minority groups could join under a wider ethnic umbrella.   An organic and open hierarchical system of organisation would naturally evolve, as it has with iwi.

Within each virtual canton representation would be synonymous with leadership and  there would be no need to impose rules on the way in which leadership is determined within a canton.    In most iwi, hapu or faith-based cantons it might be by birth or seniority, but it could also be by popular election.   Any member of a canton who could not accept either the process or the outcome would be free to shift their poll rights to another canton.   It would not be necessary to wait for an election and there would be no uncertainty as to outcome.  Thus everyone would be assured of the inalienable right to truly "choose their own leader", rather than have their choice subject and potentially negated by a process, and leaders who remarked a decline in the numbers of their followers would presumably take note and remedy the causes of disaffection.

There could be thousands of virtual cantons, each with their own leaders and followers ranging from a mere handful to hundreds or even thousands.   So how could such a multitude of interest groups form themselves into a coherent nation?   Quite simply, by allowing cantons to associate into federations putting the business of state into the care of a specified number of the largest federations ranked in order of size.   Presumably most cantons would then affiliate to one or other of the governing federations, so as to have their interests incorporated into the  Confederation of the whole.   As is the case with individuals, cantons could switch their allegiance from one federation to another at any time and for any reason, thus ensuring that the system remained continually responsive to the interests and concerns of its peoples.

However complicated such a system may seem, it worked well enough for Maori in pre-European times would be easily managed on a mass scale in a modern society with the aid of computer technology.   The elements of the present system which would be missing are

The end of election campaigns and periodic elections would not be a great loss to anyone but the professional political strategists and tacticians, the mass media, the polling companies and the pundits.   There would be no "October surprises", no pre-election sweeteners, no unforetold post-election fiscal remedies, no "Dancing Cossack" campaigns, no "wasted" votes and no "voter regret".
The end of gallup polls would mean and end to tactical voting errors based on incorrect or irrelevant polls and poll-driven herd behaviour among voters.
The end of the secret ballot would mark the coming of age of the ordinary people.   Politicians, we should note, do not cast secret votes in the Houses of Parliament or Congress and there is no good reason why the popular vote should be conducted in secret.   We all need to have the courage of our political convictions, and if we are afraid of the consequences of having our political allegiances known to the world there is something badly wrong either in ourselves, or in our society.    Either way, we should address that problem, rather than hiding it away behind the secret ballot.    We must all be accountable for our own decisions, and, equally, we must all tolerate the opinions of others.   We should not bow to those who are intolerant of others, or those who discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, by hiding our beliefs in the ballot box.   People should stand up openly and even defiantly for what they believe to be right.   In doing so we would also eradicate the possibility of electoral fraud.   If the vote or allegiance of everyone citizen is on public record there can be no scope for double voting, "ghost voters" or unauthorised changes to voting slips.   Fraud, suspicion of fraud, and false allegations of fraud, become a thing of the past.
The end of the days of "winning" and "losing" election campaigns would be one of the greatest benefits from a reformed system.   No one would be able to say, as Sir Michael Cullen did in the aftermath of an election "We won.  You lost.  Eat that".   There would be no room for arrogance, no grounds for despair, no cause for  disappointment or resentment.  People could just get on with the job of living together as well and as constructively as they possibly can.

In summary, it is hard to see any disadvantages to the re-establishment of an ancient, natural and organic system of government supported by modern technologies in modern social conditions.  It would make for a more conclusive and cooperative society.   It would strengthen bonds within social groups and enhance personal accountability and responsibility at all levels of society.   This is a radical proposal, but it is founded in history, consistent with  common sense and technically practical.   Perhaps most importantly of all its implementation does not require us to persuade half or more of voters of the wisdom and practicality of such a scheme.   The system already exists in embryo in iwi governance systems, and it can be expanded, refined and strengthened by degrees until it reaches the point that the mass of New Zealanders see the advantages and possibilities of a Confederation of virtual cantons in the light of the failure of the present Westminster system to cope effectively with New Zealand's rapidly changing demographic, social and economic conditions.

22 December 2016

The AKL-304 Scandal

To read the initial report of our investigation into the AKL-304 scandal (also known as the Chapman Tripp payments affair)  click here
The initial report was produced before further investigations revealed the involvement of a third party which invested in excess $610,000 with the evident object of provoking violent conflict over land rights in the central North Island.  With the help of the Office of the Auditor-General of New Zealand we now have confirmation that AKL-304 affair was both one of the  most serious abuses of legal process which could be envisaged in a free society operating under the rule of law and an incident that would clearly have qualified for prosecution under Sections 5(2) and 8(1) the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 if it had not been orchestrated by individuals very closely aligned to the New Zealand government.
To read the informal updates to the initial report which exposed the third party involvement  click here

6 October 2016

Hobson's Pledge

Don Brash, former Governor of the Reserve Bank and one-time leader of the National Party and the ACT Party, has hit the headlines again, this time leading an attack by the Hobson's Pledge Trust on "Maori race privilege" .   One of the first things that one can say is that the group is hardly consistent.   It wants to bring to an end supposed privileges for Maori, but appears happy to retain the British race privilege enshrined in the constitution which decrees that the Head of State of the Realm of New Zealand must be of British descent.   However inconsistency is not a mortal sin, and we are still have to answer the question of whether the Hobson's Pledge crowd have a valid argument on this particular issue of Maori race privilege.

The short answer is that they have a point but they do not have a solution.   Maori have certain rights or privileges which they claimed in antiquity, paid for with their blood in the nineteenth century, and have defended through political means in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.   Those rights or privileges should not be taken away.   Indeed they cannot be taken away without consequence.  Rather they should be extended to every community in Aotearoa.   For example mana motuhake and  kaitiakitanga - the two "privileges" which the Hobson's Pledge Trust seems most concerned to suppress - should be extended to all iwi of the motu, both Maori and non-Maori.   Every New Zealander should be left free to choose which political constituency they wish to be part of, and if they so desire, to set up a new constituency to represent their particular community, ethnic group, political or religious persuasion or any other category by which they choose to identify themselves.   It is not the business of the state to tell us who we are or where we belong.   The Maori seats, based on geography, should remain so long as the constituents of those seats desire them to remain.   But if Maori wish to establish representation based on iwi affiliation, rather than place of residence, they should be allowed to do that also.

Unfortunately some have responded to the Hobson's Pledge Trust with racist, sexist and ageist abuse.    Don Brash and his colleagues have been described as  "male, pale and stale" which they may well be, but that has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise, of their arguments, and it is their arguments which deserve to be criticised rather than their age, gender or race.

The Hobson's Pledge Trust have displayed to the world lamentable ignorance of our language, history and culture.   Their website banner claims that "He iwi tahi tatou" means "We are now one people".   Four words in Maori become five words in English, one of which clearly does not belong.   The word "now", which has no equivalent in the Maori text, was inserted into the English translation to make it appear that the status of Maori and the relationship between Maori and Pakeha had been redefined by the Treaty of Waitangi.   And none of the Trust's members picked up on that creative mistranslation, presumably because not one has the slightest understanding of te reo.   Even worse is the Trust's attempt to mangle the meaning of the word "rangatiratanga", changing its original and powerful meaning of "absolute sovereignty" to a shadowy "right to own property".

The British, through a corrupt translation,  hold that "He iwi tahi tatou" means that we all, Maori and Pakeha, natives and immigrants, are subject to the sovereign authority of the British crown by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi.   We hold, as a matter of plain truth, that "He iwi tahi tatou" indeed, and that we are subject to the sovereign authority of Ihoa on nga mano by virtue of the Holy Covenant that He has made with his people.

Despite their obvious lack of knowledge and understanding of  reo, tikanga, whakapono and history, the Hobson's Pledge movement has every chance of achieving its political object at some time over the next decade.   We dismiss them as "male, pale and stale" at our peril.   There are political and demographic forces at work from which they may garner substantial support even for a programme that is based on ignorance and misinformation.   Some factors which may work to the advantage of Hobson's Pledge are

These changes mean that Dr Brash and his friends are well-placed to use the politics of envy to advance their objectives, and they also mean that the New Zealand state has less to fear, and arguably less to gain, from Maori than it might have thirty or forty years ago.   We are facing a very similar situation to that which prevailed in 1984 when Dr Brash was able to push through economic re-structuring and privatisation of state assets against the wishes of the majority of the public because the left was caught off-guard, the work force was divided, and there was an aggressive, powerful class of professionals, academics and capitalist investors with ambitions to profit from the sacking of state assets.

Before 1984 the vast majority of leftists in New Zealand did not believe that economic nationalism could be sacrificed to global capitalism, the union movement destroyed and wage rates and conditions progressively reduced to third world levels.  Probably only a handful realized that the Labour Party of David Lange and Roger Douglas would be the instrument of this most profound policy change.   Yet the signs had been there for years prior to 1984.   Rod Deane and Don Brash had been quietly talking in meetings up and down the country about the need to deregulate the economy and the left had failed to come up with any viable alternative to their plans.

A similar change is about to take place in relation to the principles of the treaty of Waitangi.   Because we may still have about ten years to go before that change comes into effect and because the National government of John Key and the Labour Party of Andrew Little both ostensibly support the principles of the Treaty, many do not believe that Treaty principles will be abandoned by any New Zealand government.

They are wrong about that, just as they were wrong to think that because both the Labour Party and the National Party under Robert Muldoon appeared committed to policies of egalitarianism and economic nationalism the door could not be thrown wide open to rampant global capitalism.

People have short political memories.  They forget that Labour brought in the Foreshore and Seabed Act and our own Mayor Chadwick (who stands for treaty partnership at the present moment) voted in favour.  The fact is that circumstances determine policies.  The British have a saying that "Nations do not have friends.  They only have interests".  Maori have few real friends in national or local government, and such partnership arrangements as they enjoy at present will fall apart when they are no longer of advantage to the state.

The colonial state will once again abandon the treaty when the time is right, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that.  The regime has always been pragmatic.   It reaches accommodations with Maori when it has something to gain, or something to fear, and when it sees nothing to gain from peaceful cooperation, and nothing to fear from conflict, it is just as likely to choose conflict.   From the days of first contact until the mid 1850's Maori were needed to supply timber, flax, pork, potatoes and grain to British vessels and settlements, and the British lacked the military capacity to conquer New Zealand.   That is why we had the Treaty of Waitangi.

By 1860, the size of the British immigrant population and the military capabilities of the imperial forces (both British and Australian) had increased dramatically during a time when Maori had stood still.  No reira, we had the wars of the 1860s during which Maori were vanquished and their lands were confiscated.   Maori remained a dispossessed, oppressed and marginalised people until the time of the Second World War, when they were wanted for military service in Europe and North Africa, and then during the post war period when they were needed to provide labour in shearing gangs, mining crews, forestry, the dairy industry, pulp and paper, hydro-electric construction projects and the newly emerging urban secondary industries.  There followed forty years of what we can call the period of  paternalistic assimilation represented in the policies of such institutions as the Department of Maori Affairs, the Forest Service, and the State Housing Corporation.

All that ended in 1984 when the Lange-Douglas government re-structured the economy and in the process tore up the social contract which had been in place since 1936.  The push for reform came from a younger generation of liberal middle class professionals who believed that their material aspirations could not be met within the limits of an egalitarian society.   Maori, on the other hand, were no longer required to work in such large numbers in forestry, agriculture or secondary industry.   The drive of global capitalism to mechanize and replace labour with capital was to make them redundant en masse.    But the government feared a Maori backlash.    There had been a cultural and political renaissance among Maori, and so Maori threatened to become the core of national resistance to global capitalism.  The solution was the Treaty of Waitangi Act.   The Treaty was resurrected, and considerable sums of money were paid in settlement of treaty grievances so that by investing in capitalist enterprises iwi might feel themselves to be an integral part of the system of global capitalism.   By and large that is what happened.   The leadership of many iwi made successful investments and with the principles of the Treaty well established Maori as a whole adjusted to the new economic order.

However many Maori wage workers "dropped through the cracks" as wages fell while investment profits rose.    In the secular, socially liberal milieu of global capitalism addiction to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs escalated, family breakdowns became widespread and an underclass of unemployed Maori developed.   These are the people that John Key and employer organisations refer to when explaining why it is necessary to bring in foreign labour from Polynesia, Melanesia and South Asia to work in the horticultural, forestry and dairy sectors.   It is no coincidence that this is also the time at which Don Brash talks of taking away Maori "privileges".   The colonial state no longer believes that it has much to gain, or anything to fear, from Maori as a whole.  With certain exceptions it no longer depends on Maori labour in pastoral farming, horticulture or forestry.  It has cheaper and more "convenient" options such as migrant workers from the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga, India and Indonesia.  There is pressure from rapidly growing immigrant communities for greater rights and more political representation, and immigrants will begin to compare their own situation unfavorably with that of Maori.   The situation is quite similar to that in 1860, when Maori were no longer necessary to British interests, and were actually seen as an obstacle to the progress of an expanding immigrant population.  It then became necessary to take drastic action against Maori in order to appease the British immigrant community.    So in 1860 it was both necessary and possible for the government to tear up the Treaty, and that was duly done.   By 2020, or shortly after, similar circumstances will apply once again, and a similar policy change will result.   The Treaty will be torn up for a second time just as soon as the regime decides it has more to gain and more to fear from the immigrant community than it does from Maori.

That is why we should be listening to Don Brash.   He is jumping the gun, but he is not too far ahead of his time.   Within five or ten years "Maori race privilege" will come under attack not just from the fringes but from the heart of the colonial state.   However British rule over Aotearoa, based on brutality and deceit, is doomed by its own iniquity, and while The Hobson's Pledge Trust may enjoy some success in the medium term, its hopes will eventually be reduced to ashes.

Last updated 11 July 2016

Auckland District Court sentences man to three years and nine months jail for political offences.

On 23 June the Stuff website ( reported "Imran Patel, 26, has been jailed for three years and nine months after pleading guilty to making, distributing and possessing videos depicting cruel violence perpetuated (sic) by terrorist group Isis (sic)".

On the same day The New Zealand Herald website reported "An Auckland man who distributed extremist videos, featuring footage of people being shot, beheaded and burned alive has been dragged from court screaming "Allahu Akbar". Imran Patel, 26, launched into the rant as he was jailed for three years nine months before Auckland District Court this afternoon"

Patel had been arrested in November 2015 on charges of offenses under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.  He had been held in custody from the time of his arrest.

On 24 June the US Library of Congress Global Legal Monitor reported "On June 23, 2016, in two separate cases, New Zealand’s Auckland District Court sentenced two men for offenses that included possession of videos produced by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also referred to as ISIS).  The cases were the first of this kind in the country.  The charges against the men included offenses under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, which are often used to prosecute people in relation to child pornography"

The judge has said that he was not sentencing the pair for their association with "radical Islam", but the media and the public have been left in no doubt that he was punished for no other reason than his sympathies for ISIS.

A vast number of violent videos are routinely made, distributed and viewed in New Zealand.   Peter Jackson was given a knighthood for producing grisly, gory, macabre, blood-soaked videos which tens of thousands of New Zealanders watched with impunity.    Patel's video was deemed to be offensive only because it recorded public executions carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and Patel himself was only charged because he sympathizes with ISIS.  Therefore, whatever the Judge might say, Patel was sentenced to three years and nine months in jail for his political and religous beliefs.   Despite the precedent of the Patel case, no one in this country will be sentenced to a single day in jail for making, distributing or watching violent videos unless they subscribe to an unpopular political or religious philosophy - in which case their punishment will be draconian.

The liberal pundits (of both the left and right) have either been silent about the Patel case, or have indicated approval of the charges, verdict and sentence.  I am not aware of any who have challenged the decision to jail Patel for three years on the basis of his admittedly unedifying political opinions.   Yet the verdict, and the sentence, is a dangerous precedent which would be fiercely resisted in any genuinely free society.

In sentencing Patel Judge Russell Collins handed a small victory to ISIS.  The New Zealand State has now unequivocally demonstrated its acceptance of the Islamic State's basic premise that people can and should be severely punished for being of a different religious persuasion or for holding  unorthodox political opinions.  That may be a comfort to the New Zealand police, many of the public, and even Patel himself, but it will be a cause of concern to any who truly believe in freedom of thought and opinion and it will not make New Zealand a safer place.

Stuff also delved into the character of Imran Patel, quoting security expert Dr Paul Buchanan as saying.".. he's displaying all the characteristics of a classic Isis recruit." and recommending "The Government .. to look at introducing de-radicalisation programmes into prisons, by appointing moderate preachers to help counsel young people"    Dr Buchanan's diagnosis and prescription are both moot.   Patel's behaviour is that of a troubled attention-seeking person who is more concerned with expressing his own political and religous angst than with causing material damage to his opponents.  He has not displayed the kind of inconspicuous premeditation and rational linking of means and ends which is necessary to conducting a terrorist enterprise.   He is one of those emotionally unstable individuals found on the fringes of virtually all protest movements who seek to draw attention to themselves and their cause in bizarre ways.  His behaviour is not a present danger to society, but it is an indication that others, whose approach is more rational and calculating, and whose social presence is less obvious, suffer similar frustrations and could act upon their grievances in ways that could be materially harmful to the wider society.  There are Muslims (and many non-Muslims) in this country who are deeply aggrieved by Western military interventions in the Middle East, disaffected with the New Zealand government, and alienated from New Zealand society and some of those sympathize with militant organisatons such as ISIS.    So while Patel himself may be a threat, he is in a sense a canary in the mine.   He is not a threat in himself, but he does indicate an unstable environment from which real threats could emerge.

Apart from the fact that it flies in the face of the secular principle of "separation of church and state", Buchanan's suggestion that the government recruit moderate preachers to counter militant Islam has a couple of flaws.  Firstly, militant Muslims have a greater antipathy towards "moderates" who they regard as backsliders and even apostates, than they have towards infidels, and generally speaking they do not listen to the "moderates".   Patel's own history demonstrates this very clearly.  Secondly, the association of "moderate preachers" with "the government" destroys their crediblity with many Muslims, not all of them by any means "radical".  The Muslim community in New Zealand is already deeply divided between those who cooperate with the Security-Intelligence Service, and those who want nothing to do with it.  More Muslim preachers working more closely with the government will not make a jot of difference.   The only sensible solution to this problem is the one proposed by Patel himself: "Tell John Key to stop being a slave to America!"

7 June 2016

Winston Peters loses the plot - or rather follows it too closely.

Winston's suggestion that immigration should be reduced by an order of magnitude from over 100,000 to something like 15,000 has merit.  It would force New Zealanders who have been using immigration as a surrogate for sound economic development, to get to grips with the reality of their situation.  But his second proposal, that immigrants should be forced to salute the flag and affirm their belief in gender equality,  would be considered bizarre in any  jurisdiction where sanity prevails.    In New Zealand new immigrants are required to pledge solemn allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and her presumptive heirs.   They do so with nonchalance, not knowing or caring who this "Elizabeth" is or why they should swear an oath of allegiance to her.   But in order to become New Zealand citizens they need to swear allegiance and so that is what they do.   It is a lie, of  course, and all they learn from the experience is that the New Zealand state expects them to lie when  required to do so.  Now Winston wants them to lie about their attitudes to  gender equality, and probably a dozen other things as well.   He wants them to salute a flag that at least four out of ten New Zealanders would rather be rid of.   The  immigrants will do that as well.   They will  obey, they will conform and they will lie.  How can that help us?  It can't and it won't.

Postscript:  The ACT party has now endorsed the NZ First proposal, arguing that people who will not "sign up" to their understanding of "New Zealand values" "should not be allowed into the country".  What they actually mean by "New Zealand values" is a set of dogmas which are either simplistic, meaningless, or in stark contradiction with reality.   Even while glorifying "diversity" the colonial establishment wants to force the population into a formal show of conformity with  its bizarre and anachronistic political doctrines.   It won't happen of course.  ACT and New Zealand First agree that no one should be allowed to enter Parliament or become a citizen without first declaring allegiance to the British monarch, but they will be unable to agree on the articles of a more wide-ranging affirmation of faith.

11 April 2016

The Switzerland of the Pacific?

It is now clearly evident that Prime Minister John Key's plan for a change of flag was made with a nod to New Zealand's large and affluent community of Chinese immigrants.  The Prime Minister's lunch with Lewis Holden  and a handful of wealthy Chinese business people, revealed that the Chinese are offended by the presence of the British Union Jack on New Zealand's "national" colours, not because of the legacy of Ruapekapeka, Rangiriri, Orakau, Pukehinahina, Waerenga a hika, Parihaka, the Raupatu, or any of the hundreds of injustices perpetrated through British rule in this country, but on account of the Opium war, the repression of the Boxer and Taiping rebellions, the annexation of Hong Kong, and other outrages committed against the Chinese nation by British imperialism.

So New Zealand is now embroiled in the conflict between Chinese nationalism and British imperialism, and this, in essence, is what Prime Minister's lunch date was all about.   Both the Chinese and the British know that the flag is only a symbol below which sit more serious concerns about military, political and economic alliances.  The British wish to keep New Zealand part of the Anglo-Saxon alliance along with the United States, Canada and Australia.   The Chinese want New Zealand to become a non-aligned nation,  and saw a change of flag as a symbolic yet significant loosening of the bonds to Anglo-Saxon imperialism.  The British (represented by the John Key government) on the other hand saw a change of flag as way of appeasing Chinese sentiment and an alternative to political and military disengagement from the Anglo-Saxon powers.  The British, however, were only deluding themselves, and the Chinese were not  to be deceived.  A new flag alone was never going to satisfy the Chinese.  At best it would only have been taken as a sign of goodwill towards China by the colonial authorities in New Zealand, and given that even that token gesture has been withdrawn, the New Zealand government must scramble to find some other means to accommodate Chinese sentiment.

It has been obvious for the past ten years that Chinese nationalism and British imperialism would clash in New Zealand as the Chinese population increased in numbers and influence and China became New Zealand's dominant trading partner, and the only question has been over how the New Zealand government would cope with the problem.  The answer must be "not at all well".   In the flag referendum John Key attempted to accommodate Chinese sentiment in a token fashion, but even in that has been thwarted by the New Zealand public who either did not understand his motives or else were steadfastly opposed to his object.

So what possible solutions remain?.  Only one stands out, and that, ironically, is that New Zealand should become "the Switzerland of the Pacific" as proposed by Key himself, but not in the sense that Key intended, which was that New Zealand should be a refuge for the wealthy of all nations, a keeper of numbered bank accounts, and a tax haven for celebrities, fraudsters and political gangsters.

Rather New Zealand will have to become what it should have been since 1840 - a neutral state governed by a federal system and host to different languages and cultures in each of its parts.   Twenty years ago it still remained possible that New Zealand could continue to exist as a monolithic nation state, but due to demographic and economic changes that possibility has been lost to the present century.  The choice now is between political, ethnic and cultural federalism or a second round of civil wars which no sane New Zealander would want to contemplate.   In the interests of ethnic peace and social stability, both Chinese and British New Zealanders must be separated from allegiance to "home" countries, and the Chinese will have to be given a degree of political autonomy.    As must Maori, who have waited a hundred years for the rights that Chinese will be demanding within a decade.

Corruption by design: How the regulatory self-funding model is destroying the integrity of New Zealand industry

In the past I have criticised the state broadcaster, Radio New Zealand National, now RNZ National, for its unquestioning support of the secular liberal doctrines which have become the de facto ideology of the New Zealand state.  In that I may have been a little unfair.  What else could one expect from RNZ, if not to propagate an ideology which is received wisdom for nine out of ten politicians, business people, media commentators and academics, and beyond them the great mass of the middle classes?   But good things do happen in RNZ.  Occasionally the organisation, or more properly some individual within the organisation, breaks out of the straitjacket to challenge the dogmas of state.   One recent story from RNZ reporter Phil Pennington which reflects credit on the broadcaster is the revelation of sub-standard reinforcing mesh being distributed by Steel and Tube Ltd under false documentation. Corruption by design - click here to read more

8 April 2016

The flag referendum

I have been musing on the flag referendum and the disconnect between those promoting a new flag and the "old New Zealanders", particularly Maori and those Pakeha whose consciousness has been subtly influenced, or even radically transformed, by Maori modes of thought.  Maori, as I remarked earlier, have no difficulty with the concept of two or more flags representing a single entity.  Each flag carries its own message, and has its own mana motuhake.   The mana of a flag is more important than its provenance, and thus an enemy flag captured in battle might be flown the next day in defiance of its previous owners.   The Union Jack on hapu or iwi flags, occupying the same position as the Union Jack on the New Zealand Ensign, is commonly intended to signify that iwi and the New Zealand government  have equal standing before the British Crown.  However the subtlely of this symbolism may mean that it is lost on many European New Zealanders.  The Union Jack may also have been incorporated into Maori flags so that the hapu or iwi might incorporate its mana into their own.  Militantly anti-British hapu or kokiri would incorporate the union jack, or images of British soldiers, into their colours .. the flag referendum - click here to read more...

7 April 2016

John Key's vision for New Zealand as a bolt-hole, refuge or resort for the rich of the earth

Prime Minister Key has made explicit his personal vision for New Zealand which has long been apparent to observers with insight.  He wants the world's wealthy to migrate to New Zealand to escape terrorism, political confusion, refugees (irony in that one), pollution and every other ill that affects the world and which is, in no small degree, the result of the deliberate if misguided actions of the very rich themselves.  This reveals something else about John Key which should come as no surprise.   He sees himself as one of the world's rich, and despite the sterling work of his public relations people, he has more in common with a property developer in Hawaii, a stock-broker in London or a currency trader in Brussels than he does with a forest labourer in Rotorua, a process worker in Otara, or a waitress in Queenstown.  His vision has nothing to do with the welfare of those millions of New Zealanders who are not themselves already wealthy.  He leads a party called the New Zealand National Party, and has advocated for a national flag, but that is as far as nationalism goes for him.  At heart he is an imperialist and colonialist, and his policies are colonist policies.  There is a fond illusion in some quarters, encouraged by the likes of John Key, that the wealth of the wave of  rich immigrants will somehow rub off on the natives.  The reality is just that those natives who do not already possess great wealth will be priced out of the country.  If they are not driven to Australia, they will find themselves living in increasingly cramped, isolated or deprived conditions in their own land, "tenants in their own country" as Mr Key once famously observed.

19 March 2016

The most corrupt immigration service in the world"

That is Winston Peter's verdict on the New Zealand Immigration Service.  Is there any good basis to his claim?  There may be.  There are peculiar circumstances which make New Zealand more vulnerable to corruption in this area than most, if not all, other states.  Fundamentally, governmental corruption is not a product of "history", "culture", or "national character".   It derives directly from the policies of government, and sadly it is the case that New Zealand government policies deliver corruption by design not only in the field of immigration, but in other significant policy fields as well.   I will analyse this issue in more depth in a later post.

17 March 2016

"Overseas experience"

Young New Zealanders prize "overseas experience" which they believe will establish them as people to be reckoned with in the eyes of their compatriots, and older New Zealanders find some kind of validation of their life's work through touring the world and thus persuading themselves that they could have succeeded in New York just as well as they did in New Lynn or Newlands.   This mentality which is a direct effect of the sense of cultural inferiority engendered by colonialism and imperialism, goes by the name of the "cultural cringe" in Australia and New Zealand.

There is another kind of overseas experience which is not realy about experience at all, but financial gain.   New Zealanders go to Sydney, London or New York to earn higher incomes than they could in their home country.   They accumulate capital and eventually return to New Zealand to buy a home (or two or three) or a farm, or to invest in a business.

Both kinds of overseas experience are praised by the colonial regime.  The first because it ostensibly brings more highly developed skills into the country and widens the scope of its business and professional relationships and , and the second because it brings wealth.

Both kinds of overseas experience also have a long history, going back to the first arrival of Europeans on our shores.   From the late eighteenth century young men served on foreign whaling and trading vessels, bringing back some useful seafaring  knowledge and savings which were modest at best.   But the best known example of overseas endeavours must be the odyssey of Hongi Hika, who went to London and Sydney in 1819, returning with wealth extracted from the European aristocracy, converted to 500 muskets, which he used to spread death and destruction through the upper North Island.

Hongi Hika's example continues to be followed by many in the twenty-first century.   They acquire wealth from the far corners of the world, and use that wealth to attain power over their compatriots back home.  Their instruments of power are property titles rather than muskets, and there is no body count to be taken, but the intent and the effect of gaining power over others, to their cost and one's own benefit, are essentially the same as they were for Hongi Hika.

Not all those who go overseas return to oppress and exploit their compatriots, but the fact that many do is sufficient cause for us to question the notion that there is unalloyed good to be found in New Zealanders who travel overseas in order to "better" themselves either financially or professionally.   It all depends on the particular motives and actions of the individual concerned.

Imperial wars, of course, have been the preeminent path to overseas experience for hundreds of thousands of New Zealand men, and quite a few women besides.  Men went to war for mixed motives, combining curiosity, idealism and vanity, but in no case could the experience be said to justify the sacrifices.   Our involvement with the wider world has been taken to excess, come at great cost and yielded little benefit.   We are told that there is no alternative, that we must build our existence around trading with and fighting against other nations of the world.   That is just pernicious nonsense.   We have the means and the power to be a people unto ourselves if only we so choose.

David Shearer as leader of the Labour Party and John Key as Leader of the National Party both owed their positions to the prestiege and wealth they gained  in the employ of powerful global organisations.   Shearer's supporters claim that he was motivated by altruism whereas Key was driven by avarice but those claims can be seen as  both simplistic and self-serving.  The one certainty is that in a colonial society foreign education, experience or sources of wealth  rate more highly than the indigenous equivalents, thus enabling Shearer and Key to leapfrog to the leadership of their respective parties.  The meteoric rise of these two political figures testifies to the colonial character of New Zealand society, where "overseas" capital, culture, and personnel are increasingly predominant within the local realm.  While that trend continues the allure of, and status conferred by overseas experience will also continue to grow.  However colonialism will not, and cannot lead to an intrinsically strong, healthy and well-grounded society.    To achieve that New Zealanders will have to look to their own land, history, identity and culture, and apply to their own country the energies they have previously spent, or wasted, in foreign parts.

Industrial Relations in New Zealand

Modern industrial relations in this country go back to the eighteenth century, and the model followed for the next half-century was quite different to the individualised labour system of today.

Originally, Maori provided labour and Britiish and Australian merchants provided capital for the production of timber, flax fibre, pork and potatoes.     Back then, capital dealt with labour through the organisations of labour, that is through the tribes and their chiefs.  Differences of language and culture, and the power of the tribal system relative to the system of capital, made this the only viable option.   Interestingly, the Maori model was taken up by European immigrant labour who formed themselves into collectives which undertook a wide range of forestry, agricultural, roading, mining and even manufacturing work under their own elected leaders or foremen.  It was not until the twentieth century that capital was able to achieve tighter control over the labour force by appointing its own foremen and employing individual labourers in place of the gangs or collective groups of labour.

Labour responded to the individualisation of labour by forming trade unions to negotiate collective terms and conditions of labour, but the trade union system was a poor substitute for the sovereignty of labour which had existed in the days when Aotearoa was still a free and independent nation.   In the past three decades the historical decline in the status of labour has accelerated.   Trade unions have been destroyed.    Labour still creates capital, but it is no longer a viable means to acquire capital.   In other words, the labouring class is being progressively shut out by the system of capital.   Under the Maori system, labour generated wealth in the form of a surplus which was used to buy capital goods such as sailing ships, ploughs, flour mills, flax mills and agricultural buildings.  Later, under the modified system of unionized labour, labourers were still able to acquire sufficient capital to buy their own homes.   Now, with the colonial system fully entrenched, capital rules every aspect of our lives.   Farm labourers have no real possibility of buying a farm on the strength of their earnings, and at least half of the urban working class will not realise their ambition to own a home.   The way forward is not trade unionism.   It is the sovereignty of labour, the sovereignty of the people,  and the absolute destruction of the sovereignty of capital and the sovereign pretensions of the British monarchy.

Light armoured vehicles

In 2001 the Labour Government purchased 105 Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) at a cost $653 million, ostensibly for use in overseas conflicts. In the intervening  fifteen years the sum total of overseas deployments has been 11 sent to Afghanistan (where they were so vulnerable to Taleban IEDs that they were mainly used for show) and now three have been deployed in the police action at Onepu Springs near to the town of Kawerau.  That may well have been the kind of purpose for which Helen Clark's government intended them.   But by what stretch of the imagination would the authorities in Wellington need 105 vehicles which are only suitable for quelling civil unrest?   Did Clark seriously suppose that 15 incidents such as the Onepu siege could occur on a single day?   Or that a few score of lightly armed nationalists might  take their guns onto the streets of some major New Zealand town?    The thought beggars belief.

Is free trade (or any sort of trade) a good thing?

From the late seventeenth century, New Zealand was exposed to free trade in muskets, rum, tobacco, sex and land.   The consequences were death by gunshot, alcoholic poisoning, lung diseases, venereal infections, and eventually dispossession from the land.

At that time, as now, free trade was an article of faith for the British empire.   Britain had demanded that China open its markets to the trade in opium, which was dominated by the Britain.  When the Chinese refused, the British government made war on China, obliging it to allow market access for British opium grown in Burma and India.   The United States fleet, under Admiral Perry, then confronted Japan, forcing the Japanese also to accept the principle of “free” trade.

At about the same time the British were the leading player in the global slave trade.  When dissenting Christians finally forced Britain to end that particular trade, the British parliament paid compensation - not to the slaves, but to the slave owners who had been deprived of their property in slaves.

Similar provisions have been incorporated in the TPPA - companies involved the sale of tobacco, alcohol, sex, gambling and pornographic movies will be entitled to compensation if, or when, their vile trade is brought to a well deserved end, while the New Zealanders who have been the victims of the trade would receive nothing.

Free, unrestrained trade has always been advocated by moral reprobates.  The New Zealand Parliament today is full of such types, sitting on both sides of the House of Representatives.  They have granted freedom of trade  to the purveyors of alcohol, gambling and prostitution but they have enslaved working people and they are innately hostile to the idea of popular sovereignty for New Zealand.  Their formal allegiance is to a wealthy foreigner (Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors) and their practical loyalty is to the powerful global corporations which dictated the text of the TPPA.

The kauri forests of Tai Tokerau were felled in the name of free trade and shipped to San Francisco to build houses, which were then destroyed in the great San Francisco fire.  What was left? Gorse covered hills at home, and the ashes of the city of San Francisco.  Gorse and ashes are the only legacy of free trade. If there had been no free trade those forests would now be sustaining the New Zealand economy, full of life and providing timber for craftspeople, artisans and boat and waka builders.

The rivers are also being destroyed for the benefit of the dairy trade.   Many are no longer fit to drink, and it is unsafe to swim or fish in their waters.  Meanwhile, free trade in land means that New Zealanders are deprived of the right to roam by wealthy private landowners, many of them foreigners.

The log export trade is sustained by logging juggernauts which roll past the houses poor, choking them in clouds of dust, shaking their foundations and making normal conversation impossible.   People die when logs fall off these trucks, and carnage results when the trucks collide with cars and pedestrians.

The export trade in eels, whitebait, paua, crayfish and oysters and other seafood to affluent  foreign markets means that most New Zealanders no longer have access to these traditional foods, and cannot afford to buy them from the supermarkets.   Even lamb and beef, which are exported in huge quantities, are now beyond the means of many.

During the Irish potato famine, while Irish working families were starving to death, and millions were forced to emigrate to the “new world”, tons of grain were being exported from Ireland by by the wealthy landlord and merchant class.  Would anyone seriously  suggest that those Irish children who died of malnutrition were better off because of free trade?   Now many New Zealand children are struggling to obtain good quality nutrition.   Are they better off because of New Zealand's policy of free trade in meat, dairy products, fruit and seafood?

Free trade in residential and farming property means that New Zealanders have been deprived of their supposed  “birthright” to own a family home or family farm.

What has the  trade in oil, coal and other fossil fuels done for the world apart from creating traffic congestion, pollution of the air, rivers and seas, global climate change and wars over access to oil?  What  about the trade in weapons which brings death and destruction to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and many other parts of the world?

The supposed  benefits of free trade are an economic dogma which is not far short of being a hoax perpetrated by the privileged classes who have most to gain from it.   Trade may have a place in a properly ordered world, but the current obsession with trade divides the rich from the poor, demoralizes people, and destroys their environment.  It only benefits the rich and powerful in any country.

The New Zealand government Minister of Trade Mr Todd McClay has argued “We are a small export nation and trade is our lifeblood. Every region in New Zealand relies on trade. Take fish away from Nelson, kiwifruit from the Bay of Plenty, forestry from Kawerau or Tokoroa and wine from Marlborough and see what happens.”

In truth New Zealand is a small nation but the present export trade is the lifeblood seeping out of the land.    We may just as well ask "Where would Afghanistan be without opium?  Mexico without marijuana? Columbia without cocaine?".   All these lands, and the world as a whole, would actually be better off.   The people of these countries may think their survival depends on the trade in these commodities, but they have been duped.  As have New Zealanders.  Free trade has never served their true interests.

4 February 2016

Sovereignty and the TPP

Popular concerns about "loss of sovereignty" arising from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement are understandable.  But one has to ask "Who holds sovereign authority in New Zealand at this moment?"  Legally, from the perspective of the New Zealand state, it is Queen Elizabeth.   A wealthy foreigner.  Who in practice controls the decisions and policies of the New Zealand government?   Foreign governments and foreign and domestic commercial  corporations.   Not the people of New Zealand.  The United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in that order, with the government of the Peoples Republic of China playing a hand.  On the corporate side Fonterra, Sky City, BHP, BP, Mobil, Todd Energy, Infratil, the shipping companies, Carter Holt Harvey, Juken Nissho, Rayonier, Rio Tinto and the rest.

So the TPP changes little.  The New Zealand government does not represent the sovereign authority of the people of New Zealand and never has.  The sovereignty of the people of New Zealand, Maori and Pakeha, can only be asserted by a new state or  confederation of iwi which is not formally subject to the British Crown or subservient to the dictates of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia and the United Kingdom.   The challenge of our time is to form an indigenous state power, based on the organisational principles of the Confederation of Tribes and the Kingitanga, but covering all our people under its potae.

Who benefits from trade?

"Everyone" say the economists, and as usual they are wrong.   They acknowledge that there will temporary difficulties and disruption as uncompetitive industries are forced to close down.   But they argue that "in the long run" everyone will be better off.  That is nonsense. The great Irish famine was caused by free trade.  Throughout the famine Irish landlords were exporting grain, which the starving Irish farm labourers could not afford to buy to feed their own families.  As John Maynard Keynes observed, in the long run we are all dead, and the families of the Irish labouring class were well and truly dead from starvation long before the market corrected itself.  In fact it was the deaths of thousands of Irish men, women and children, and the emigration of millions more, which provided the sacrificial correction that the market required.  If New Zealand was cut off from all international trade, the immediate result would be roast lamb on the table, while whitebait, crayfish, paua, oyster and snapper would once again be on the dinner menu.   The majority of New Zealand workers would be better off, not just for the short term, but "in the long run" as well. The wealthy, who would have to forsake their luxury cars, yachts, holiday homes in Hawaii and imported luxury goods, would suffer most.  Which is why they keep perpetuating the nonsense that the more goods traded internationally, the better it will be for all of us.

The fear of history

The colonial regime, while seemingly in charge of the day to day business of state, finds the ideological foundations crumbling under its feet.  Its response has been to seek immunity from criticism, not by overt repression, but by undermining intellectual standards across the board - in the legislative debating chamber, in the press, on the web, on television and radio.  The "flag debate" - is a case in point.   The arguments for both sides of the "debate" as represented on the government web site, bill boards and television advertisements were crass.  Consequently people stayed away from the government organised public meetings in droves, which would have suited John Key just fine.  Any serious expression of interest from among government supporters would actually have been a worry to the colonial authorities.   Now the state broadcaster, Radio New Zealand (renamed  "RNZ") has ditched its long standing and respected "Sounds Historical" programme, presented by Jim Sullivan, and replaced it with a "Sunday Nostalgia" programme presented by Paul Brennan.   History as the critical study of the antecedents of  state and society, had become a danger to the regime.  Nostalgia, as a form of sentimental indulgence, is a safe and thoroughly acceptable alternative.   In every sphere of public discourse the goal of the state is to switch the focus from "thinking" to "feeling" because, as Adolf Hitler observed, people are more easily manipulated through their feelings than through their thoughts.

29 January 2016

Pernicious fictions

The division of Aotearoa into opposed populations of "Maori" and "Pakeha" is an invention of the British Crown which dates back to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.   Prior to that time Maori lived in separate tribal groups, each of which had its own mana motuhake and what we now term "territorial sovereignty".  However the reality of divided native sovereignty presented a problem to the British as they aspired to impose their own sovereignty over the motu.
If the Crown had acknowledged the truth, that the individual tribes enjoyed their own separate territorial sovereignty or mana motuhake, it would have needed to negotiate a separate treaty with each tribe.  That would have proved impossible for two reasons...  Pernicious Fictions - click here to read more...

27 December 2015


Two hundred years ago an insular people, the Maori of Aotearoa, suddenly and unexpectedly came into contact with the outside world of the Pakeha.  Maori quickly determined that they could benefit by trading with the newcomers.  They encouraged some Pakeha  to settle among them, to act as a bridge between the cultures, and to facilitate trade.  The new settlers were given or sold land to dwell upon and the numbers of Pakeha steadily grew to the point where the value to Maori of individual Pakeha was diminished, and the demographic threat presented by the growing Pakeha population intensified. Dispossession - click here to read more...

Caroline Perrett

At the age of 8, Caroline Perrett was kidnapped by Maori in Taranaki in 1874, and was discovered living as a Maori in Whakatane fifty years later.   Her story, as told to the Sun newspaper is recorded below.  It is a remarkable tale, most revealing of Maori life and the extraordinary character of Caroline Perrett.  I have reproduced it here because to my mind, for the study of the history of New Zealand, and the relationship between its peoples, it is one of the most significant documents still in existence.
I have no recollection whatever of my early life at Lepperton. Neither is it true, as has been read to me from the newspapers, that I can remember being taken across the sea in a great canoe by the Maoris. My first conscious memories begin from the time when, as a small girl, I was digging gum with a band of wandering Maoris in the Kaipara district, north of Auckland.... Caroline Perrett - to read more click here....

4 October 2015

Helen Clark on the TPP

Helen Clark's gratuitious comment that "New Zealand could not afford to be left out of the TPP" (Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) was deliberately designed to undermine New Zealand's position at the TPP negotiations.  Helen Clark is now a United Nations bureaucrat.  She is no longer Prime Minister of New Zealand and thus some may think that there is no reason why she should support, defend, or even remain silent in the interests of the people who had elected her to the highest political office in the state.   However, Ms Clark's disloyalty to New Zealand predates her appointment as Director of the United Nations Development Program.

Her political career was driven by pride, egoism and personal ambition. In the aftermath of the 2008 election which brought an end to her time as Prime Minister of New Zealand she declared that she would not work as the "Number Two" within the system, and would not settle for anything less than the top job in New Zealand politics.

Clark's subsequent path to the United Nations was smoothed by a secret and treacherous decision to allow the establishment of a NSA data centre in New Zealand which is used to spy upon the New Zealand public on behalf of the United States government.  Thus even when she occupied office of Prime Minister of New Zealand, she was already acting on behalf of foreign powers who she believed held the key to open doors for her in her future career.

Her attempt to subvert the New Zealand negotiating position on behalf of the United States should not surprise anyone, but it will disappoint many Labour supporters who are still subject to the deluded belief that Helen Clark was in some way committed to the welfare of her own people.

10 September 2015 Additions and revisions 20 September 2015

The New Zealand wars

Why do they matter?

The government and people of New Zealand have been involved in a remarkable number of wars over the past 175 years, though their commitment to most of those wars has been questionable.   The wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were conducted reluctantly, in token fashion, and enjoyed little popular support.   Earlier wars, in Malaya and Korea were not particularly popular, and were actively opposed by the peace and anti-imperialist movements.  The Second World War was the last truly popular war, because it was the last war during which European New Zealanders saw themselves more as part and parcel of the British Empire than as an independent South Pacific nation.  Even then it was not an entirely popular war, and the Labour government of the time needed to impose conscription and strict laws against sedition in order to maintain political stability and military effectiveness for the duration.

   .....  but the wars which were fought in this country... really defined us as a people and shaped our history.   They were unjustified, bloody, brutal and cruel, but also the occasion for acts of great courage and compassion.   Villages and farms were burned and their occupants slaughtered.   Prisoners were executed summarily and indiscriminately, by pistol or tomahawk.  Small groups of warriors fought to the death against overwhelming odds ...
 The New Zealand Wars - click here to

4 September 2015

Sex, lies and murder

Martin Schofield murdered his partner Katrina Drummond after learning that she had been "seeing another man".  The couple's daughters are devastated.  Schofield is apparently unrepentant, which is not an insignificant fact.  The Schofield daughters' spokesperson, David White, whose own adult daughter was murdered by her partner in similar circumstances expressed outrage at the brutal murder of Katrina Drummond, pointing out that a domestic murder takes place every five days in New Zealand.   How to stop it?   We can wring out hands, we can deplore the mentality which leads people like Schofield to commit murder, or what they themselves may see as justifiable homicide, but that will do little, if anything, to reduce the incidence of spousal murder.

Many domestic homicides are directly or indirectly linked to infidelity.  Meanwhile New Zealanders are trying to create a world which is safe for adultery.  They expect that they can create a society in which not just nine out of ten men, not even ninety-nine out of a hundred, but every man living will accept a partner's adultery with something close to equanimity.    It can't be done.   Adultery has always been fraught with danger, and the de-criminalisation of adultery, along with no-fault divorce, has not made it one jot safer.  Most men do not kill their adulterous partners, but some do, with complete disregard for the consequences, and  it is probable that the thought passes through the minds of quite a few more.

One of the first European settlers in New Zealand, Jacky Marmon, had a Maori wife who he records had " a fondness for a young Maori chief...when I was convinced that the matter went further and that her character was not spotless.. I simply provided myself with a musket, summoned her, told her of her fault, and quietly blew her brains out  ... it raised my mana vastly in the tribe".   One has only to read the plays of Shakespeare to see that New Zealand's is not the only  culture in which a man loses the respect of society when his wife is supposed to have committed adultery.  Neither is New Zealand the only society in which a cuckolded man can regain his lost mana by killing the errant wife.

Times have changed only in the sense that execution for adultery, once greeted with widespread approbation in New Zealand, is now publicly denounced in the strongest terms.   But Martin Schofield felt himself as much justified in his action as Jacky Marmon did.  He believed that by the act of murder he had restored his lost mana.  "Honour" or "mana" killing, whether or not it is so-called, is not peculiar to middle eastern cultures.  Even in the most liberal of secular societies female adultery is still considered such an affront to a husband's pride and social standing that it can end in murder.

No one these days would suggest that women should keep themselves safe (or safer) by remaining faithful in marriage.    A woman should be safe regardless of where she goes, at whatever time of day or night, whoever she may be with, and whatever she may be up to.   And some women will continue to be killed by their partners for doing just that.    The same applies to men, though on average men are probably at less risk from their partners.  There is nothing the state or society can do about it.   There is no effective deterrent.  No one has yet succeeded in creating the Brave New World  in which sexual infidelity is accepted by all as of no emotional consequence.

26 August 2015

Soft talk on repugnant philosophies

Last night Radio New Zealand National's Paul Brennan interviewed the New Zealand Initiative's Eric Crampton on the subject of "repugnant markets".

The term "repugnant markets" refers to trade in goods or services which are considered morally objectionable.  Prostitution,  pornography, and dealing in psycho-active drugs such as cannabis, methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine are repugnant to most of us.   Others, who hold to stricter moral values, deem the trade in alcohol and tobacco, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or weapons in general to be repugnant.  So the concept of a "repugnant market" is subjective.
One's concept of repugnancy depends on what one considers to be morally objectionable.  Conversely, to those who have no moral values there is no such thing as a repugnant market.   Crampton, for example,  favours free markets in everything from prostitution to the sale of body parts.

Liberals like Crampton are anxious to assert the rights of the individual to sell her soul, body, and any part thereof in any repugnant market where such personal "property" can find a willing buyer.  The only reason he does not assert the individual's right to sell himself or herself into slavery is that slavery imposes a moral obligation on the slave owner to feed, house and clothe the slave.   In other words, Crampton would only oppose slavery because it involves moral obligation, which is anathema to him.

Despite working under the banner of the so-called "New Zealand Initiative", Crampton himself is not a native New Zealander.  Like many of those who have stepped into  leading roles in the colonial regime and proclaim themselves to be "New Zealanders" (for example the Chair of "Monarchy New Zealand", Dr Sean Palmer), he is in fact a Canadian, and what is more one who has no sense of moral obligation to native New Zealanders, or, for that matter, to anyone else.   He is comfortable with the notion that a market in body parts should be established in this country, so that the privileged can extend their lives, and the poor can reduce their own life expectancy, through the transfer of body parts from the poor to the rich.  The call for a body parts market is not inconsistent with the general policies of "The New Zealand Initiative", which very simply says that the privileged classes in this country should be allowed to use their wealth in the most nasty, brutal, depraved manner imaginable, and that the poor must be forced to submit to their will.

Any listeners who hoped that Brennan might ask searching questions of Crampton were swiftly disillusioned.   Brennan confined himself to patsy questions, and uncritically accepted Crampton's ridiculous idea that allowing the wealthy to farm the poor for body parts must add to the general well-being of New Zealand society.  Those like Brennan and Crampton who promote the idea of a proudly amoral society have been elevated to their present status of  "leaders of public opinion" by a corrupt political regime and a morally degenerate academic system.  One thing is certain: Crampton and Brennan did not get where they are by virtue of intellectual merit.   The time of "hard talk" has yet to come, but when it does, people like Crampton and Brennan will suddenly find themselves standing naked before a laughing public.

14 August 2015

Solid Energy and the tyranny of debt

As prices plummet for a broad range of commodities - coal, oil, steel, aluminium, timber and dairy products to name just a few relevant to the economy of this country - New Zealand faces the prospect of a global economic depression that will have a far more serious impact than the global financial crisis of 2008.

Debt will be the key factor that brings New Zealand farmers, manufacturers, state-owned enterprises, governments and householders to grief in a declining market.   New Zealanders have learned nothing from the disasters of the past century.   They have not read their history.  They have not even read their newspapers, of if they have, they have failed to note the obvious lessons from three decades of debt-driven company collapses, each of which has helped to wipe out New Zealanders' equity in their own country.

Bill Oliver wrote in 1960 that "New Zealand accepted a perpetually precarious position.. of dependence on overseas markets, creditors and shipping" but noted that "New Zealand can never stop a market from contracting, a creditor from turning sour...".   From the nineteenth century New Zealand economy has been built on the unholy trinity of debt, speculation, and immigration.   In the nineteen thirties we were told of "A newly formed army of private land agents.. exhorting farmers to get rich more quickly by ... buying larger holdings.  The possibility that debts might one day have to be paid was entirely lost sight of".   If New Zealanders had not been kept so ignorant of their own history, the year 2015 would evoke a keen sense of deja vu.

Going back beyond the nineteen-thirties in Tony Simpson's 1990 work "The Slump. The 1930s depression: Its Origins and Aftermath" we read that "The parallels between the economic events of the twenties and thirties and and the Long Depression of 1870-95 are clear.  In each case the New Zealand economy ... began to decline as commodity prices fell... hard on the heels of the land boom which overvalued land .. in relation to its productive capacity .. the costs of capital servicing exceeded the surpluses .. the result was widespread business collapse".

In the past decade we had the Crafar farms debacle, and there will be more Crafar farms over the next few years, across the whole range of the New Zealand economy, each  contributing to a plethora of ripe pickings for foreign capitalists.   The only surprise is that New Zealand has survived relatively unscathed for as long as it has.

History has dealt New Zealand two brutal lessons in the past 150 years, and is about to deliver a third, which in all essential respects will be a carbon copy of the first two.   As always the bogy will be debt.   Debt is the means by which the impatiently ambitious, the lazy and cowardly among us seek to improve their station in life, and, as often as not, end in ruin.  Without debt, a business, a farm, a state or an economy can survive falling commodity prices with relative equanimity.  When burdened by debt, they go to the wall.

That is why I have limited sympathy for the debt-ridden generation which features in Andrew Dean's Ruth, Roger and Me: Debts and Legacies .   These young people  bought into the ideology of capitalism with all its pernicious doctrines of  self-interest, socio-economic inequality, debt, return to capital and the deification of the Market.    Debt, followed if necessary by emigration, was the way in which they supposed they could avoid the necessity to take on and destroy the colonial regime which had refused them their birthright.   Most will discover, along with Solid Energy, thousands of farmers, business people and home owners, that debt is not the answer to their problems, and that all they have done is postpone their day of reckoning with the colonial order.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English raised another issue when he used the collapse of Solid Energy as an occasion to declare it as evidence that governments are not competent to run a business.  This is not a new argument.   It was routinely offered up by the fourth Labour government, who however, assured the public that the State Owned Enterprise model would resolve the problem of governmental incompetence by establishing SOE structures which emulated private corporations, appointing private sector directors to the boards of the SOEs, and appointing private sector executives to manage them.   English is now suggesting that this does not work, and that not only the share-holding ministers, but also the private sector directors and management team have failed abysmally.  He appears to be suggesting that state enterprises will fail regardless of the suitabilitiy of their corporate structure and the quality of governance and management and for no other reason than that they are owned by the state.   That is a ridiculous argument, with not a jot of empirical evidence to support it.   Spectacular business failures, and the occasional successes, over the past eighty years in New Zealand have been widely spread across the public and private sectors.

The real problem is that New Zealand managerial and political classes are overtly monarchist, which means that they do not believe that it is necessary for the Head of State to justify her position in any way.   She reigns by hereditary right and that is the end of the matter.   By extension, they insist that their own competence and integrity must be accepted as a given, while the unpalatable truth is that the political and managerial classes in New Zealand are both corrupt and incompetent, and New Zealand will continue to suffer economic catastrophes until such time as those classes are eliminated from the social order.

24 July 2015

Ruth, Roger and Me: Debts and Legacies
By Andrew Dean, published by Bridget Williams Books

Dean's book speaks for a generation which is largely silent and ignored.   It is based firstly on his personal experience of growing up in Canterbury under the economic reforms initiated by the Labour government beginning in 1984, and continued by successive New Zealand governments thereafter, and secondly on his interviews of two key Canterbury proponents of the new economic order, Rod Carr and Ruth Richardson.   Dean made no secret of the fact that he is critical of the new order, but he reports the contrary views of his interviewees with scrupulous academic objectivity, all of which testifies to the underlying strength of his argument. Ruth Roger and Me - click here to read more

15 July 2015

Chinese surnames and the Auckland property market

So 40% of Barfoot and Thompson Auckland house sales are to buyers with Chinese surnames.  Does it matter?  Was it wrong to make this fact public?

No, because a decent, mature society should be able to determine the facts of its situation and make reasonable political inferences on the basis of those known facts.

Most of us have known for years that the dominant buyers of Auckland residential property are Chinese born-in-China, and those buyers have been instrumental in pushing the market to heights at which few wage-earning, family-raising, native-born New Zealanders can afford to buy.   The politicians meanwhile have either flatly denied that foreign buyers are driving young working class New Zealanders out of the Auckland property market, or have claimed that it is impossible to say that is the case due to a "lack of evidence", which lack they have been careful to maintain for as long as possible.  Now that some persuasive circumstantial evidence has been presented, they are outraged.  They frantically, and disingenuosly, equate a simple statement of facts which have long been obvious to us all, to "racism".

But what political inferences can be reasonably drawn?

Not that Chinese property investors are worse than South Africans, Britons, Americans, Germans - or New Zealanders.

Not even that "foreign buyers" of whatever race or creed are the root cause of the housing problem in Auckland.

New Zealanders themselves are fundamentally the cause of their own problems.

Many New Zealanders have got rich through property speculation, which in the end comes down to gaining wealth without any great effort of their own, and at the expense of their fellow New Zealanders.   A large proportion of the population want that to continue to be the case, either because they are already reaping the gains of speculation, or because they are hoping to in the future.

The unintended, but not unforeseeable, consequence is that a major part of the nation's major metropolis has been handed over to a class of relatively speaking very wealthy foreigners - white South Africans who have made their wealth on the back of black African labour, Britons who have enriched themselves from financial speculation and bank fraud, corrupt Chinese communists who have ruthlessly exploited their own working class, and the most scheming, selfish and greedy element of virtually every nation on the planet.

Phil Twyford and Labour cannot say that New Zealanders are the cause of their own problems, because Labour parliamentarians, and parliamentarians in general, are among the worst offenders.   There is no "supply problem" in housing, and neither is there a "demand" problem.  There is a greed problem.  It is that simple.  The solution is also simple.  No one needs a house for any other purpose than to house themselves and their family.  No one needs to own more than one house and no one needs to own more than one farm.   There must be restrictions on the ability of anyone to own more than one house, more than one farm, or a home or farm larger than necessary to provide for the needs of a single family.

27 May 2015

Lucretia Seales

"Lucretia Seales, a respected public law specialist, is asking the Court for a declaratory judgment that would ensure her GP will not face charges under the Crimes Act 1961 if, and when, she assists her to die".

Lucretia and her supporters in this legal action say that they are supporting her fundamental rights, but in doing so they are burying some fundamental truths.

First, they are glossing over the fact that the action, if successful, will give Lucretia herself no rights which she does not already possess.   Rather the purpose is to give members of the medical profession the legal right to willfully bring about the death of persons in their care.  This cannot help but change  the character of the medical profession, how the profession sees its own role, how it is perceived by the general public, and how it actually functions in practice.   Euthanasia will become a branch of medicine, then a profitable industry in its own right.  Ordinary medical doctors will become more like  veterinarians specializing in the care and well-being of the human animal.   They may still feel compassion, even love, for their patients but ultimately they will be drawn to take a utilitarian view of the value of human life.  Who can say where that may end?.

Second, suicide, in whatever circumstances, damages society.  That is why it was once a crime, commonly denoted as "self-murder".  Suicide causes grief to the bereaved, it destroys a life which has the potential to do good, and it sets an unwelcome example to others suffering from all degrees of physical or emotional pain.  It should be discouraged, if not by the law, then by religion, and if not by religion then by  moral philosophy.  People are wrong to presume that they can truly value the quality and prospects of another life.   There are things that surpass human understanding.   Miracles, both great and small, do happen.   Medical prognoses are not always correct, and even if accurate, the doctor can have no conception of how the last months or days might affect the soul of the dying person, or how the dying person might continue to be an influence for good in the lives of their loved ones.

Third, Lucretia's professed fear of living with a reduced mental capacity is understandable, but it is not a fear to which we should submit.  Rather we need to assert to Lucretia, her supporters, and every member of society  that the value of her life lies in her total humanity, and is not premised on her physical strength, beauty, or intellect.  It is the same with all of us.   Whether handicapped from birth, or having suffered a loss in our natural abilities due to illness, injury or aging, our lives all have equal value in the eyes of God, and we should learn to see the value of every life, including our own, through His eyes.

Fourth, and perhaps most contentiously, pain and suffering are an essential part of human life.   They are not the consequence of a divine aberration or a mistake of evolution.   They are there for a reason.  In acting to minimize our own pain, we effectively preserve our own lives.  In acting to reduce the pain of others we help to preserve the integrity of our human society.   Yet it is also true that our journey through life is concerned with seeking to reach a state where pain and suffering become subordinate to  faith and understanding.  We can confront and overcome our own pain, and that of others, with courage and compassion.  The attempt to drive all suffering out of our lives by means of chemicals, whether in lethal or sub-lethal doses, is misguided.  When others face pain with courage, they inspire us.
When the pain is too great for them they endure with equanimity, they plumb the depths of our compassion.   Our pain, and the pain of others can  make better people of us, if we will allow it.

The decline of physical or mental prowess can be sad, but it is also a normal part of aging, and so far as we are able we should face such changes in our worldly condition with patience and resignation.   Lucretia's fear of her anticipated loss of "independence" and "dignity" in the last days of life is also mistaken.  Dependence is the normal human condition, and independence is at best merely relative, at worst a deception.  As her health fails, Lucretia may feel her dignity is under threat, but others who know and love her will continue to treat her with dignity, and that is all that matters in the end.

In the end, the only way to completely eliminate suffering is to eliminate life itself.  For many New Zealanders that expedient would be a step too far.   The next few days will tell whether it is also a step too far for the High Court at Wellington.

Footnote 5 June 2015: The new this morning that Lucretia Seales has died of natural causes is a cause for sadness, but at the same time it confirms some of the above comment.   "Medical prognoses are not always correct...Miracles, both great and small, do happen..."   The small miracle for Lucretia was a relatively easy and gentle death, and that by the grace of God she was spared the long painful death which she so greatly feared.    May she rest in peace.

The "right to die".

We all die, and whether we have a right to do so is immaterial.   But what the euthanasia campaigners are really asking for is the supposed right to control the time, place and manner of death.   A planned death is the logical extension of the desire to have a life in which everything is planned and nothing is left to providence, fate or the will of God.  That attempt to achieve total control over the course of our lives does not make for happiness because it is contrary to our human nature.  We are made to rejoice in unexpected pleasures, and to stoically accept unwanted suffering.  We do not feel more secure when we have taken measures to absolutely control our own lives, to secure all our pleasures and exclude all possible sources of pain or suffering.   Ironically, the further we go in that direction the more likely we are to feel anxious, insecure and "far from God".

22 May 2015 Revised 2 June 2015

Sinclair's Onion: the misunderstanding of identity

A few months ago I was travelling by bus from Wellington to Rotorua, and when the bus made a refreshment stop at Taihape I dropped into the local public library.  There I purchased a paperback copy of "Great New Zealand Argument: Ideas about ourselves", an anthology of New Zealand essays edited by Russell Brown from the Withdrawn titles bin.  Judging from its condition, I may have been the first reader of the Taihape Public Library copy of "Great New Zealand Argument".  That is no reflection on the intellectual merit of Brown's anthology, or its relevance to the condition of New Zealand in the twenty-first century.  Rather it is a sad confirmation of the plaint running through many of the essays, which is that most New Zealanders would rather not think deeply and critically about themselves as a nation. ... Sinclair's Onion - click here to read more...

Crisis?  What crisis?

One redeeming characteristic of  political extremists, whether from the left or right, is that they do not usually obfuscate.  But Don Brash is an exception.  Like many on the right, he is arguing that there is no housing crisis in Auckland, and that the only problem is high house prices due to a lack of supply.    He prefers to ignore the demand factor which draws unwelcome attention to the role of people of wealth, such as himself, and he prefers to focus on the supply factor, because that suggests that the problem lies elsewhere, with local councils, environmentalists, and people working in the building trades.   Yet serious economists assert, quite correctly, that price in a market economy is a function of both supply and demand, not one or the other alone, and, perhaps more contentiously, that by definition there is no "problem" when supply and demand combine to set a price in the market.

This economic logic is what underpins John Key's belief that there is no housing crisis in Auckland, and in a sense he is right.   It is just that some people, actually a whole lot of people, possibly the great majority, cannot afford to buy a family home, while others, a much smaller group, can afford to buy two or three or twenty or thirty.  To John Key, who happens to belong to the latter group, that is not a crisis.   Some people can afford to buy a new Mercedes-Benz, while others can't.  Does that  constitute a Mercedes-Benz crisis? No, it is just the way things are.

Which brings us to the underlying problem in Auckland, which is not "supply" or "demand" or even the combination of the two, but gross inequality of wealth (admittedly in concert with unequal access to low interest loans, and a taxation system which favours residential property investors over home buyers).  If everyone in the market for a house possessed an equal share of the national wealth, there would be no housing "problem" or "crisis", and prices would settle at a level affordable for all.

If all those wishing to enter the market, whether residents or foreigners, did so on the basis of equality of wealth, after-tax income and access to capital, then house prices would settle at a point acceptable to all.   Alternatively, there are steps which could be taken to provide more or less equal access to housing without requiring effective equality of wealth or income.    A rationing rule of "one dwelling per person" would quickly bring house prices down to realistic levels.  When that was recklessly proposed by a guest on state radio, the host, Jim Mora, denounced the idea as communist.  In fact, the vision of an egalitarian society based on privately owned family homes and farms has no connection to Marxian communism.  It is the essence of free-market capitalism as everyone understood the concept at the height of the cold war.  Yet it is as unlikely to see light of day under the present political system as much more radical solutions such as the redistribution or socialisation of wealth

Both foreign capital and foreign labour do influence the property market in New Zealand.  For the past thirty years the National, Labour and ACT parties have been assuring native New Zealanders that immigration would not adversely affect their access to jobs or housing.  They were not just mistaken.  They lied. It is now evident that immigration is not just a factor in rising property property prices, it is the major factor.  Wealthy foreign investors bid up the price of urban residential property, while non-resident workers paid the minimum wage in the dairy and horticultural industries help to sustain the profits of those industries and thus to drive up the price of rural land.  But it has nothing to do with whether they are Chinese, German or South African, Fijian, Jordanian or Indonesian and everything to do with the fact that they are either much wealthier, or else significantly poorer, than the average New Zealand worker.  "Globalisation", the policy of successive National and Labour governments, does not only allow the importation of the full range of globally produced consumer goods.   It also allows, indeed requires, the importation of the full range of global social and economic inequality.   That suits the purposes of the colonial state, which from the days of the New Zealand Company has explicitly or implicitly as the case may be, sought to establish a class society in Aotearoa, but it does not serve the end of a stable, equitable and happy nation.

With the inequalities that exist most Aucklanders will never own their own homes, and if that is a problem they have a limited number of options.  One is to get seriously rich  - winning Lotto seems to be the most popular option, and some might suggest the best practical prospect for acquiring the kind of wealth necessary to buy a house in Auckland.  Another is regime change.  If faced with twenty thousand Aucklanders committed to the overthrow of the colonial state John Key would have no difficulty in seeing a "crisis" in front of his eyes.  However he knows that New Zealanders are a pragmatically docile lot who only resist injustice when other avenues of escape - such as emigration - are closed to them.   So I am forced to concur with Key, that there is no crisis at present, but if a real crisis should arrive at some time in the future, the political solution will not be lagging far behind

28 April 2015

Dirty Politics

Nicky Hager's work "Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand's political environment" is one of those books which will be largely ignored by those who should read it (National and ACT party voters), and widely read by those for whom it will contain few surprises (supporters of all other parties, most particularly Labour and New Zealand First ).
"Dirty Politics" is a compelling brief of evidence against a network of individuals, all associated in some way with the New Zealand National Party, who have used tawdry and duplicitous methods to unduly influence the outcome of the political process in New Zealand.   Evidence is what is usually lacking in "conspiracy theories", but in this case sufficient evidence is presented to transform the "theory" of collusion and subterfuge into proven fact.   In that respect Hager and his sources have done the nation a service.
Hager exposes the workings of attack politics with clarity and detail, in terms of its constituent elements.   The system works on four levels: which I categorise as "funders", "handlers", "attackers", and "collaborators" on the one hand and "targets" on the other....   Dirty Politics - click here to read more...

7 April 2015

The perils of modernity

The deliberate destruction of Germanwings Airbus A320 on a flight from Barcelona to Germany by its co-pilot Andreas Lubitz signals that the indiscriminate mass  murder  (usually described as "terrorism") is not a phenomenon restricted to any particular religious or political persuasion.

Throughout their history human beings have engaged in various forms of mass murder for a wide range of motives.   So what, if anything, has changed?  The simple answer is that mass murder has become more congruent with the general structure of a society based on mass production and informed by mass media.   In a previous age the production of light, heat and sound required skill, time and effort, and even with a degree of skill could be a dirty, difficult business.  Mass murder committed by a single individual was all but impossible.    Today light, heat, sound and death can all be delivered quickly and cleanly by an unskilled person who knows how to flick a switch.

Improved ways of killing have been accompanied by  removal of the moral inhibitions against killing.   The traditional inhibitions have been eroded on the one hand by the rise of atheistic ideologies such as fascism and bolshevism, and on the other by the rise of nihilism out of the liberal fixation on the pursuit of individual happiness and the gratification of the individual will.

At the same time the division of society into the classes of "celebrity" and "nonentity" has created a new motive for dramatically amoral acts of murder and mayhem.   Many young people confess that they want "to be famous", and dream of being lifted out of the mass of nonentities into the company of the celebrities who they see portrayed on television, film, radio, magazines and newspapers.  The great majority of these young people eventually find real fulfilment in normal personal relationships, and quietly abandon the quest for subliminal fulfilment through celebrity status.   However when normal relationships fail, the desire for fame may be  reasserted with tragic consequences.

When the new capabilities, disinhibitions and motivations of liberal industrial society coalesced in the person of Andreas Lubitz one hundred and fifty travellers died on a mountainside in the French Alps.    Society reacts with horror to instances of terrorism and mass murder even if, as in the case of Andreas Lubitz, it does not  know how to classify the incident.   But the news editors and the politicians, the ideologists of the liberal regime, seem incapable of exploring the real reasons why these events take place.

The frightening conclusion, which most seek to avoid, is that while such incidents may be out of the ordinary, they are not abnormal.  Like the concentration camps of an earlier era they are the logical outcome of a widely accepted mindset, a historical context, and a particular state of technical development, and so long as society  adheres to the belief that fame and happiness are legitimate goals in the life of the individual, such  incidents will recur.

11 February 2015

"Freedom of the Press"

Journalists and newspaper editiors have been  horse-whipped, lynched or murdered by outraged members of the public or criminal gangs for as long as the profession has existed.  Latterly the media has portrayed such events, previously categorised as crimes against public order,  as attacks upon the "freedom of the press".   Thus the liberal zeitgeist blurs distinctions random acts of individuals and systematic programmes of state.  The weakpoint of liberalism is its failure to discriminate between distinctly different types or entities such as male and female, words and actions, the state and the individual and even right and wrong.   The resulting outcome is a confused public discourse and misguided public policy.

The important difference between state restrictions upon "freedom of the press" and public attacks on journalists is a reflection of the difference between the state, as an organised body functioning according to well-defined rules, holding a preponderance of power and claiming absolute authority, and the public as an assortment of individuals or groups who are subject to the power and authority of the state and who, generally speaking, recognise the legitimacy of the state.

When individuals or groups vent their anger at the press through acts of random violence, there is little or no effect upon what is published or broadcast by the mass media.   Journalists carry on with their work, reasonably confident that the state will deter, prevent, or punish such crimes and therefore that attacks upon journalists and news organisations will remain isolated events.

On the other hand state restrictions upon freedom of the press have a palpable effect.  The power of the state is constant and pervasive and the media accepts state restrictions without question, as seen in the Sydney coffee house siege, the New Zealand military's attempts to intimidate journalist Jon Stephenson, or the "D-notice" system operating in New Zealand, under which the state instructs the news organisations to suppress publication of items considered inimical to the interests of the state.   When Australian journalist Peter Gresham was imprisoned by the Egyptian state, backed by the United States and Australian governments, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Australian media, and their counterparts in New Zealand, maintained an undignified silence, reminiscent of the official silence which surrounded the execution of five Australian and New Zealand journalists by the Indonesian military in East Timor in 1975.

For the families of murdered journalists, it may make little difference whether their attackers were acting independently or under the direction of the state, but for society as a whole the consequences are of a different order, and the concept of "freedom of the press" should not be confused with the intention or consequences of individual acts of violence.

A free press is no more than a means to an end, and it only has value when it gives rise to and sustains the working of a decent, truthful and honest press.  Society only tolerates indecent publications, such as Charlie Hebdo because a free press is recognised as a necessary condition for a virtuous press.   But western civilisation can no longer lay claim to decent, truthful and honest news media, and thus the argument for a free press may seem less compelling.   The news media in its self-assumed role of "the fourth estate" acts as an agency of state, and thus has become an instrument of deception, misinformation and provocation.   Until that changes, the news media will be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution to the crisis of western civilization.

9 January 2015

It's colonialism, stupid.

The most intelligently dispassionate New Zealand media comment on the Charlie Hebdo attack came from Derek Fox, who pointed out that the attack had been provoked by Hebdo's lampooning of the prophet Muhammed. Hebdo is a pornographic publication with a political slant - not the sort of magazine that you would give to your fourteen year old daughter for a Christmas present, and one has to wonder whether those who take up the cry "Je suis Charlie" (or, in New Zealand, "I am Charlie") really have much idea of what they are saying about themselves.   That is forgivable ignorance.  But there is also inexcusable arrogance at work when imperial peoples, invariably European and usually secularist, think they can properly and safely ridicule the things which their subject peoples hold most sacred.   Fox knows otherwise.   If a European New Zealander walks into a bar in South Auckland and begins to ridicule things Maori or Polynesian, he will mostly be ignored, but sooner or later someone, in gross disregard of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and security of the person, will throw a punch.  That is the unfortunate reality of life.

At a broader and deeper level, these events are the reaction to centuries of western imperial rule in the the Muslim world.  Colonialism is a two way trade.   European armies and administrators are sent to rule conquer and rule the colonial territories and colonial peoples migrate to the European centres of empire to serve as cheap domestic labour.  But as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott pointed out, this foreign labour force has no love for its hosts.   "They hate us and they hate our freedom" Abbott declared.  He is right.  They do hate the freedom of people like Abbott and French President Francois Hollande to do pretty well whatever they like at home or abroad.   The socialist Hollande has directed a resurgence of French military activity in North Africa, the middle East and Central Asia, and, in the most colossal act of hypocrisy, banned observant Muslim women in France from going out in public.   When insult is added to injury incidents will happen.  For the imperial authorities like Abbott and Hollande, it just part of the cost of doing business.   For the victims it comes as a rude, brutal and unanticipated shock.   Sadly, there will be more such shocks, because the imperial nations show no signs of engaging in the sort of self-examination necessary to break the cycle of wanton death and destruction.

6 January 2015

New Year Honours

Republicans are generally uncomfortable with the New Zealand honours system because it is a royal honours system, explicitly associated with the monarchy.   They would resolve that problem by changing the name from "Royal Honours" to "National Honours" (for the benefit of right-wing republicans), "New Zealand Honours" (for those on the left), "Kiwi Honours" (for the shameless proponents of pseudo-nationalism) or "State honours" (for those New Zealanders who still believe that honesty is preferable to dissimulation).

A mere change of name would require no fundamental re-thinking of the whole logic of a system of state honours which has been explored previously on this site.   The system itself is designed to confound the best and the worst of New Zealand society: authors, musicians, public-spirited citizens, and sporting heros with military commanders, spy chiefs, prominent politicians and wealthy capitalists, so that the most malign among the citizenry, and the state itself, may share in the aura of those who have genuinely contributed to the well-being of society.

The apparent "democratisation" of the honours system, previously the preserve of liquor industry magnates, right-wing politicians and their ilk, and which now bestows low-level honours upon community workers and social critics, has simply made it a more insidious and effective tool for undermining the ethos of egalitarianism in this country.

There is another reason why the honours system should be dispatched with altogether, and that relates to the way in which it is, and must be, administered.   The honours are decided in secret by a committee which acts as it sees fit.  There are no rules to go by and no objective measures are employed.  The honours system is an expression of the autocratic power which dominates and controls the lives of New Zealanders, to the good or ill of individuals, but always to the detriment of society as a whole.

I first came up against the reality of the honours system as an adult student at the Canterbury University School of Forestry, when when I was the only student in my graduating year to be awarded first class honours as a Bachelor of Forestry Science, two other students being awarded second class honours.  However the prize for "best student" (the Schlich Memorial Prize), awarded by a committee of government and industry leaders, went to one of the second class honours graduates.  When I enquired into the apparent anomaly, I was told that the prize winner had been selected because he was an "outstanding rugby player who had contributed to the success of the School of Forestry rugby team".  Many years later a member of the university staff revealed to me that the real reason why I was passed over was that my political opinions were unacceptable to the government and industry members of the prize committee.   (Ironically, the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau did recognise me as the "best student" of my year on the basis of straight academic results.)

That case is one example of how New Zealand bureaucrats, spy agencies, politicians and business interests work together in formal committees or informal association to make, or break, the careers of millions of New Zealanders, with the sole object of perpetuating their own corrupt hold on power.   Even while many thoroughly decent people may be caught up in it, and even though it may appear to be relatively innocuous, the honours system is part of a vile system of patronage and persecution which should not be tolerated.  The winner of the Schlich Memorial Prize in my year was an able and decent young man.  His personal and professional qualities may indeed have been far superior to my own.  That however is not the point.   The point is that social rewards, opportunities, punishments and restrictions should be based on objective rules and administered in a transparent manner.  That does not happen in New Zealand, and the royal honours system is just a case in point.

17 December 2014

"The bombing will continue until morality improves.."

I was one of those who believed that massive and sustained western aerial bombardment of Muslim populations from the Gaza strip to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan would provoke soul-searching among Muslims, culminating in higher standards of public morality  in the Muslim world.  The recent events Peshawar now lead me to doubt that confidence in the ability of humanity, and Muslims in particular, to return good for evil.  More bombing from the air may provoke further outrages on the ground.

There are two drivers for the massacre of innocents.

One is the passions and hatreds which are unleashed by the deaths of loved ones, compatriots or co-religionists.

The other, which particularly applies to the Muslim world, is the interruption to social discourse, and the destruction of restraining social institutions by blunt western military force.   Under the impact of the bombing, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have become anarchic societies, leaving different groups and factions free to follow their own  convictions and advance their own interests.  That anarchy has a positive aspect compared with the brutally authoritarian rule of previous military or quasi-military regimes.  But  I remain unshaken in my conviction that massive aerial bombing by the western powers is no way to deal with the clash of cultures.   Neither do I believe that it is an appropriate way of responding to particular violations of the rules of civilised societies.

I suspect that most New Zealanders and Australians would share that belief.  Unfortunately, their governments do not, and it is governments which  control the military assets of the state.  The bombing will continue until God knows when...

After the bluster, a whimper...

Andrew Little started his tenure as leader of the New Zealand Labour Party with a bang, impressing many with the vigour and clarity with which he attacked the mendacity of Prime Minister John Key, and denounced the process in which the so-called "counter terrorist" legislation was being rushed through Parliament without public consultation.

But by week's end, Little's crusade ended in a whimper as he cut a deal with Key to accept the "appalling" parliamentary process and to support the legislation allowing Key, the master of "dirty politics", to conduct un-warranted video surveillance of New Zealand citizens through the Security Intelligence Service and Government Communications Security Bureau.

State surveillance is little more than an insult to the general public, who will become accustomed to the fact that government spooks may be listening to their conversations, reading their mail, and watching who they associate with in private houses and public meetings.    The real impact is on the state itself.   In every other state which has set up mass surveillance systems the main use of the data gathered has been political blackmail, and the target has been those who work within the system.   Secret knowledge is secret power, and the spychief is potentially either the most powerful or second most powerful person in the state.  J Edgar Hoover, Laventri Beria, Heinrich Himmler all had credible justifications for the systems of surveillance which they administered, and enjoyed a measure of genuine public support.  None of that changes the fact that  mass surveillance is the mark of dirty regimes, and that there is a direct association between the rise of state surveillance and the widening gap between people and state.

So why would Little hand those powers of mass surveillance to a man like John Key?   Does Key "have the dirt" on Little?   Sooner or later both Key and Little will depart the scene, but the damage to what is left of the integrity of the state will be permanent.

Little also will have disappointed many with his statement that legalisation of marijuana is "not a priority" for the New Zealand Labour Party.  Effectively he is sitting on the fence, an awkward and uncomfortable position for any politician to occupy over the long term.   The statement is designed to signal that Little is sympathetic to the call for legalisation, but fearful of the political consequences of giving open support.   The convergence of National, Labour, and the Labour spin-off parties, ACT and United Future, towards a liberal consensus on both economic and social issues has not been to the electoral advantage of Labour which has been bleeding socially conservative working class voters since 1987.  On the other hand, Labour's rump ultra-liberal middle-class members could not contemplate a return to any form of social conservatism.   So Little must fence-sit on this issue, until such time as some other party - either ACT or National - takes the initiative to legalise marijuana.

20 November 2014

Who is sovereign?

Disputes over sovereignty are the most profound debates which can occur in any society, even if they do not always generate as much heat as the more mundane issues of taxation and governance.  The Waitangi Tribunal has re-opened the question of who, or what, is sovereign in Aotearoa by ruling that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria at Waitangi in February 1840.   The New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has now stepped in to insist that "without question the Crown is sovereign".  Mr Key is incorrect, even in his own terms.    Queen Victoria's descendant, Queen Elizabeth, is sovereign in the realm of New Zealand, and it is to her that Mr Key swears allegiance.   "The crown" on the other hand is an abstract entity comprising sundry parts, Mr Key himself, in his capacity as Prime Minister, being one.  Can Mr Key plausibly claim that he personally exercises sovereign authority through his leading position in the political apparatus of the Crown?  Would he dare to make such a claim explicit?    He would not, because to do so would provide substance to the claims that he is politically "arrogant".  But neither is he eager to tell the plain unvarnished truth that for the regime, Queen Elizabeth, Queen of New Zealand, is sovereign.  His evasion is understandable.   He would have difficulty justifying giving sovereign authority over these islands to a foreign-born and overseas-resident hereditary monarch, particularly when there are other more appealing candidates.   For nationalists and democrats "the people" are sovereign, for advocates of tino rangatiratanga, Maori, and for nga morehu, Ihoa o nga mano. There may be no question in the minds of  individuals, be they supporters of the regime, democrats, nationalists, believers or Maori, but there remains a profound difference of opinion between individuals, and a political question which must be addressed and resolved by one means or another.

12 November 2014


The Obama administration has decided, or claims, that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria threatens the security of the United States.  Consequently, though not necessarily logically, the Key government declares that ISIS is also a threat to New Zealand interests.   The Labour Party "opposition" has fallen into line and so has the mass media.   Only the Green Party is being difficult, and the New Zealand Herald's political correspondent John Armstrong has had to take them to task in his best early-childhood-educator style: "listen up, Greens - it's a lesson you must learn ..the public expects political parties to .. reach some consensus in the national interest".    Armstrong does not inform us quite how he knows what the public expects (all the evidence is that the public is not at all convinced by the case for New Zealand to take on ISIS), or why the government's policy is "in the national interest"  except for the supposed "threat to life and limb posed by ISIS".  We are left with the presumption that John Armstrong himself is the ultimate judge of both "public opinion" and "the national interest".

It may be that ISIS has taken many lives and limbs in Syria and northern Iraq, but I am not aware of any New Zealanders who have suffered under its rule.   If New Zealand was to go to war with any regime which inflicted death and suffering on its own people why not Mexico, where 43 student protesters were abducted by police last month and then handed over to a drug cartel for execution?  Or Egypt where scores have been executed, hundreds massacred in the streets and thousands imprisoned following the military coup?  The answer is that New Zealand does not go to war in order to right abuses or to protect the "life and limb" of either New Zealand or foreign citizens.  In most such cases, New Zealand will not lift a finger or utter a word to help the victims of atrocity.  Armstrong himself reveals the real reason for the ISIS deployment is that it is "the minimum John Key could get away with without traditional allies such as Australia looking askance".   The Green Party must fall in behind the Labour Party, because the Labour Party has fallen in behind the National Party, which has fallen in behind Australia, which has fallen in behind Barack Obama.   Never mind if Obama has got it wrong.   He probably has got it wrong, as did his predecessor, George W Bush.   But at least Obama is doing his own thinking.  New Zealand politicians are not thinking through the issue at all, with the exception of the Greens, who are being castigated for their impertinence.

So let's look at ISIS.  The problem with ISIS is not the number they have killed, or even who they have killed and how (the public beheading of just a few westerners is clearly of greater consequence than the millions of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani who have had their heads blown off by bombers from the civilized democratic western nations).   The problem posed by ISIS is that it has imposed a political order which is opposed to western style democracy and which has proved both popular and successful.  The caliphate has brought orderly, efficient and honest government to the regions under its control.  It has been welcomed by millions in Iraq and Syria, and by many within Muslim communities around the world, particularly Muslim youth.

That is a threat of sorts, but it is not a "threat to life and limb".  It is an ideological threat which in the normal course would meet with an ideological response.  But western regimes have no ideological weapon in their arsenal which is capable of resisting the ISIS campaign, and so they have chosen instead to use the high explosive weapons which they possess in abundance.

The highly publicised killing of two soldiers in Canada by disaffected  Canadians, and the unsubstantiated allegation of a plot to behead random Australian citizens are an expression of the social tensions and political interests at work within the countries which make up the western military alliance.   There are millions of frustrated young men in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand a few of whom see Islam as a principled, egalitarian answer to their personal problems and the general crisis of western society.   They derive from Islam a feeling of self-worth, brotherhood and most critically a sense of personal legitimacy, and the converse illegitimacy of the regime under which they live.  A rather larger number of those who sit at the heart of neo-liberal capitalist regimes in turn find that this tiny minority within a minority of "home-grown Islamic extremists" can  be used to inspire panic among the mass of the population thus ostensibly providing justification for wars and enhanced levels of social surveillance and control.   But the problems of western capitalism will not disappear if, or when, ISIS is removed from the map of the world, and the disaffected masses of the western nations will go on to adopt other more substantial standards of legitimacy under which to challenge the status quo.

Prime Minister Key has said that New Zealanders who go to areas controlled by the Islamic State will be radicalised by ISIS "propaganda" and that the way to deal with this threat of radicalisation is to destroy the source of the propaganda, by killing those who have given allegiance to the Islamic State.  He also proposes to prevent New Zealanders from traveling to areas under ISIS control, on the assumption that they will come back converted to the ISIS view of the world.  Ironically, the New Zealand government chose to begin revoking passports on political grounds in the same month that the world was celebrating the fall of the Berlin wall, which prevented East Germans from freely travelling to the West.   Twenty five years later the New Zealand government has yet to learn that no regime can save itself by restricting freedom of opinion and the freedom to travel.

Mr Key is either deluded or disingenuous.   New Zealanders are capable of making up their own minds about what they see and experience when traveling overseas, and intelligent enough to realise that what works in Iraq, or what has arisen out of the historical and material conditions in Syria might have no direct relevance to what is possible in this country.    But whether he is deluded or being deceitful, his stand will do no great harm, and may even do good.    New Zealanders should not be taking sides in a war in the Arabian peninsula when they have a battle to fight against the colonial regime here at home.

ISIS may survive through the onslaught of western bombs, but at some point it must either fade away or evolve into a different kind of order.    Black flags and balaclavas are not  the attributes of a movement which truly believes in its own historical and religious legitimacy, and ISIS, or whatever follows after ISIS, will at the very least have to find a way of co-existing with its Shia neighbours.  Meanwhile, New Zealanders should focus their own efforts upon ridding themselves of another  regime which has become a national and international disgrace.  The 29 New Zealanders who died at Pike River, and the 10 who died in the forest industry last year are evidence of a regime which cares little for the lives of its own people, while claiming, quite falsely, to be outraged at the fate of the Yasidi and the Kurds.

24 October 2014

It's called integrity Mr Key - "an undivided state" - but you might not understand...

To have integrity means to be undivided, not broken into parts.  An individual of integrity will be recognisably the same person in any situation. He will give the same account of events regardless of whom he is addressing or in what circumstances.  When John Key in his capacity as Prime Minister refuses to answer questions about his communications in his capacity as Leader of the National Party he is not just being precious about which hat he happens to be wearing at the time. Mr Key should not be allowed as many faces as he has hats.  He should not present different faces to Cameron Slater, the National Party caucus and the New Zealand public.   By so doing he demonstrates that he lacks integrity in the literal sense of the word.
Integrity in an informant means that we are not left wondering whether what we hear from him is influenced by his other interests or relationships.  His family connections, employment, political affiliations and private property interests should make no difference in what he tells us.  As a matter of course we expect the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from those in whom we place our trust.
Mr Key has now abandoned all pretence of integrity.   We all now know what many have long suspected, namely that John Key will only tell the public of New Zealand those things which he believes will serve him well, and will conceal whatever he believes may jeopardize his personal or political interests.  Even his "darling wife" might justifiably wonder whether he is speaking to her as a husband, Prime Minister of New Zealand, leader of the National Party or any other of the many alter egos which he assumes in the course of a day.

17 October 2014

Liberty, equality or fraternity?

The liberal critics of twenty-first century capitalism - in New Zealand people like Max Rashbrooke, Sir Edmund Thomas and the Bruce Jesson Foundation - have focussed their attention on the social and economic "inequality" arising out of the "neo-liberal" economic order.  (The egalitarian, social liberals attach the prefix "neo-" to distinguish the right-wing economic liberals from themselves, but when it comes down to it they are all liberal, albeit of different shades, and the "neo" tag merely serves to obscure what they have in common).

The egalitarian argument received a boost from the international publication  of Wilkinson and Pickett's "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" in 2009.   Without going into the detail of the debate which has been generated around "The Spirit Level" by those who criticise its methodology, there is a persuasive argument that more economically equal societies are happier and more productive.   However, even assuming that to be the case, it does not follow that egalitarianism can provide a workable solution to the ills of a grossly unequal society such as New Zealand.  Inequality is an artifact of the social order, not its basic premise.   One cannot effectively treat a social disease by  publicly fulminating over the symptoms.

The idea that equality (or for that matter "freedom") is the answer (and by implication at least, the only answer) to the problems of our age reveals the pitiable state of political discourse in New Zealand.  On the one hand we have the right arguing that "freedom" and "choice" are a sufficient basis for a sound and stable social order, and on the other the left arguing that "equality" is the only necessary and sufficient condition.  Neither side comes close to replicating the depth or subtlety of the debates over the issue of "liberty" and "equality" which took place in, for example, France in the period from 1789 onwards.

In fact, left and right have divided pretty much on the same grounds as left and right divided in revolutionary France, where the right stood for  "Liberté, sûreté, propriété" ("Liberty, security, property") and the left for "Liberté, egalité, fraternité" ("Liberty, equality, fraternity").  The world has not changed that much in the past two centuries, but  our ability to appreciate and articulate political distinctions has changed - for the worse.

In becoming "liberal" the left has accentuated the importance of liberty and equality at the expense of the third part of the revolutionary motto, fraternity.  It is worth noting that while the rightists preferred ""Liberty, security, property" over  "Liberty, equality and fraternity" the early socialists (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Cabet) joined with Christian religion in maintaining the pre-eminence of fraternity over liberty and equality.

The Wikipedia entry on the tripartite motto of the bourgeois revolution notes "Leroux .. ordered the motto as Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, an order also supported by Christian socialists, such as Buchez....the nationalist Charles Maurras in his Dictionnaire politique et critique, ..claimed Liberty to be an empty dream, Equality an insanity, and only kept Fraternity".

I am not suggesting that we follow Maurras, although I do believe that we should listen to what he, Fourier, Saint-Simon and others have to say.  Devotion to a single principle of social organisation is always fraught with danger.  The liberal obsession with the liberty of the individual, whether economic (from the right) or social (from the left) or a more thoroughly consistent combination of the two, such as expressed in the ACT party, underlies the current crisis of civilization, just as surely as the Marxist fixation on solidarity (as a travesty of fraternity) brought the Soviet regimes of the twentieth century to their ultimate destruction.

Instead, we should focus on better understanding the meanings of, and relationships between "liberty", "equality" and "fraternity".   How far, and through what mechanisms should the rights bestowed by "liberty" and obligations incurred through "fraternity" be balanced?   Many on the right do not even regard this as a valid question which is why their system is headed for a catastrophe.  Many on the left do not understand how crucial the question is their ability to lead or promote positive social change, and that is one explanation for the current political impotence of the left.

I dealt  with the concept of  choice  in some depth in  a previous post.  For a critical analysis of the egalitarian argument  click here .

14 October 2014

Counter Counter-point

Wayne Brittenden presents Counterpoint on Radio New Zealand on Sunday mornings.  He is one of a rare breed in New Zealand broadcasting - articulate, erudite, perceptive and courageous.  He is also, as far as I can make out, a secular liberal, and like so many secular liberals his rare insight fails him when it comes to questions of religion.   His talk last Sunday, on the subject of John Calvin and Calvinism, is a case in point.  Rather than canvas the whole matter of Brittenden's talk - which was a harsh and to my mind unbalanced assessment of Calvin's character and contribution to religion - I will discuss one particular aspect, which was central to Calvin's theology, namely the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.   Counter counterpoint - click here to read more

12 October 2014

South Africa 1899-1902
France, Belgium, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Samoa 1914-18
North Africa, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Russia, Germany, Austria, Pacific, Japan 1939-45
Korea 1950-53
Malaya 1949-66
Vietnam 1964-72
Timor l'este 1999-2003
Iraq 2003-
Afghanistan 2002-

And New Zealanders should be barred from engaging in foreign conflicts?!  Is that not "just what we do"?  Is it not what supposedly "defined us as a nation"?  The hypocrisy of a New Zealand "ban on foreign fighters" will not be lost on the six billion others who share planet earth with us.

If we are to have a ban on foreign fighters, let it be according to a rule of law, such as a constitutional provision which bars all New Zealanders from fighting in foreign lands or on behalf of a foreign power.  New Zealand's involvements in foreign wars have been devastating for New Zealand as a nation and for the nations in which they fought.  To take just one example from my own experience, Vietnam was devastated by its American war, while back home in New Zealand generations were divided, there were battles on the streets of Auckland and Wellington, the left took up arms against the right, and the New Zealand troops came home broken, embittered and despised by many of their compatriots.  The Iraq involvement ended in catastrophe, and the Afghanistan campaign has been a tragic fiasco, with New Zealand lives thrown away to no effect.

Sweden, which has not fought a foreign war in the past two centuries, is a much happier, more prosperous and united nation than New Zealand, which has jumped headfirst into almost every war going since 1899.

Yet John Key will not bar New Zealanders from serving in the military forces of the State of Israel, the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  It is unlikely that he would bar them from fighting in, for example, a Tibetan revolt against the Peoples Republic of China, a domestic uprising against the Islamic Republic of Iran, or an attempt to overthrow the communist regime in Cuba.

Giving the Prime Minister power to decide which wars New Zealanders may engage in, and on which side, will make every overseas conflict a potentially divisive domestic political issue.   Within New Zealand it will set Muslims against Christians and secularists, and left against right.  It will also  complicate New Zealand's international relations. Whenever a war breaks out anywhere in the world, the parties to the conflict will insist that the New Zealand government allow or proscribe, as the case may be, participation of New Zealand citizens on one side or the other, and will be seriously offended if New Zealand does not accede to their demands.

A blanket ban on engagement in foreign conflicts (my personal preference) or open-slather are the only sensible options for the regime which John Key serves.   Arbitrary powers are a two edged sword, or a tiger held by the tail.  Choose your own metaphor.  By giving himself authority to decide the rights and wrongs of every foreign conflict, Prime Minister Key will be making a rod for his own back.

(Brian Rudman, New Zealand Herald 15-10-14, cogently argues essentially the same case)

11 October 2014

Electoral post-mortems and political pathology

In the aftermath of the 2014 parliamentary election the New Zealand Fabian Society has suggested "The .. thing that need (sic) to be fixed is the deligitimising (sic) of politics for people such as academics, scientists, all those who know about what is going on. If we don't have the maximum freedom of speech for such people then we are leaving politics to the Cameron Slater's (sic) of this world. Countries need  intelligent motivated people and the great reservoir of those people is in the public service. What we have at the moment is that we don't have a public servant who doesn't think that they are doing something wrong if they get themselves involved in what is going on as a citizen".

Ironically, the Fabian Society declined to publish any comment criticial of the idea that giving  "maximum freedom of speech" to academics and scientists  would restore the fortunes of the left.  Evidently the Fabians believe that the rest of the population, who presumably have no idea "what is going on" in New Zealand, do not need or deserve the same "maximum freedom of speech" as academics and state servants.

The idea that the "great reservoir" of  "intelligent motivated people"  who "know about what is going on" is in the "public service" is the left-wing equivalent of the rightist myth that the most industrious members of society are to be found among the ranks of the wealthy.   The reality is that millions of ordinary New Zealanders work harder than the privileged rich and think more critically than the Fabian academics.

If state servants avoid involvement in anti-establishment politics it is not because they think they would be "doing something wrong" in a moral or legal sense, but rather because they fear  the consequences for their own careers.  No new law or guideline for state servants will change that reality.  Those who have the courage to take a stand, will do so now, regardless of the personal consequences.   Those who choose to remain silent, will remain silent regardless of whatever legal rights, privileges or protections they may be offered.

Thirty-five years ago I was dismissed from a relatively menial positon in the New Zealand Forest Service when I refused to sign a document which would have bound me to silence in cases where I believed that the safety or well-being of the population as a whole was being put at risk.   Thousands of my colleagues at the time - including "academics, scientists" and all other degrees in the "public service" - did sign, and went on to enjoy lucrative state service careers.   The state bought their silence for the price of their annual salary.   These academics and scientists de-legitimised themselves as moral beings on the day that they signed on to the Official Secrets Act.  It was something they did to themselves, not something that was done to them without their consent by an oppressive state.

I suspect that left-wing post-mortems on the election result, of which there will be many, will follow that of the Fabians and that there will be no serious study of the underlying pathology of the left.

I can offer a couple of suggestions of the pathology which underlies the slow remorseless decline of the left..

The first is that, as the ACT party has been saying, and successive governments have demonstrated over the past three decades or more, the New Zealand state is no friend of the people.   The colonial state has slowly rotted from its heart outwards, and the canker now affects every twig and branch.  With each passing year if provides less protection from the elements and its fruits are  fewer and poorer.  We are deluded if we think that the state, state housing, state education, state health, state assets or state welfare can provide salvation.   We are deluded if we believe that the New Zealand Parliament can avert, resolve or even seriously mitigate the imminent crisis of imperial civilization.  Yet, in defiance of logic and evidence,  the left remains committed to the idea that the state is the solution to all our problems.

The second suggestion is that, in contradiction of the liberal fundamentalism which is the common creed of all left-wing and most right-wing parties, morality does count.   Social liberalism (to which the left is explicitly committed) and economic liberalism (to which the right is equally committed) are conjoint twins which even the most deft philosophical scalpel cannot separate within the public consciousness unless to cause the demise of both.

The right has progressed from economic liberalism to social liberalism, and the left from social liberalism to economic liberalism.  These two strands now come together in a loveless embrace on the unholy ground of corrupt and exploitative twenty-first century capitalism.

From a practical point of view, neither the left nor the right can stand and endure once they have abandoned traditional moral principles.  They will be riven by factionalism, betrayed by opportunism and plagued by egoism.   Because it has privileged access to the halls of wealth and the corridors of power the right may  survive better than the left, but it is only a matter of time before both drown in their own political cess-pit.

A move to the right?  A note on the metamorphosis of the left

There is a common misconception that the parties of the left, ranging from the British Labour Party to the Chinese Communist Party, once in power inexplicably and without warning made a dramatic "shift to the right".  Overnight, this theory suggests, the crimson butterfly of socialism metamorphosed into the ugly grub of robber baron capitalism.  Perhaps so, but every metamorphosis has its ontogenesis, and this global phenomenon was both  predictable and explicable.  It was not a "shift to the right" in defiance of the left's fundamental articles of faith.   It was not the gross betrayal of popular fiction.   One, two or a few individuals may commit acts of treason.   When almost every social democratic and communist party in the world undergoes the same dramatic transformation, and when, to take the example closest to home, almost every member of the New Zealand Labour Party caucus endorses the New Zealand Government  Treasury programme for privatisation of wealth, one cannot plausibly call it an act of treachery.

The privatisation of wealth was a natural progression in which the left was not acting out of character, but, on the contrary was revealing its true, authentic and most fundamental character.   The left, in both its social democratic and its Marxist incarnations, has appealed to the most base instincts of the working class and others among the poor.  Trade unionism, as actually practised, became sectional selfishness, which inevitably devolved into individual selfishness.   As far back as 1975 a Labour government established an accident compensation scheme which recognised, formalised  and blessed social inequality, valuing the lives of individuals by their relative levels of income.   A later Labour government set up a "New Zealand Superannuation" scheme, Kiwi Saver which operating on the same fundamental principle that it is the task of the state to recognise and institutionalise, rather than to mitigate or eliminate, inequality.  Both schemes are naturally operated as capitalist enterprises, because the logic of selfishness, which is the fundamental ideological premise of the left, is also the logic of capitalism.

23 September 2014

Not a bad outcome

The general election delivered New Zealand a morally discredited National Party Prime Minister and spared it a Labour Party Prime Minister who would have quickly disappointed the nation just as surely as he has disappointed his own Labour Party colleagues.   The result on the night has also put paid to the misguided parliamentary ambitions of the far left, which can now get down to working among and for the deprived and alienated mass of their people - if they have a mind to.

I do not share the conviction of the pundits that the failure of the left can be solely or even largely attributed to its curious liason with Kim Dotcom.  Dotcom himself has been quoted as saying "I take full responsibility for this loss tonight because the brand Kim Dotcom was poison for what we were trying to achieve, and I did not see that before and it only became apparent to me in the last couple of weeks." and most commentators have taken him at his word.  There are few things more convincing than a heartfelt mea culpa. But even an allegation supported by a confession should still be subject to scrutiny.  John Key is happy to lay blame for the humiliation of the left at the palatial door of his personal bete noire and Dotcom, who has an ego to match his physique, naturally sees himself as the principal actor in the electoral farce.   But  other factors, and other possibilities, need to be considered.   The more visceral revelation of the Australian "random decapitation plot" might have had a bearing on the outcome of an election in which mass surveillance by the state and its purported justification, international terrorism, was a significant issue.   Elections are won by appeals to fear and greed, and much fear was generated among the New Zealand public by the Australian story of an Islamist plot to carry out random killings on city streets.  In such a climate, many voters, including the liberals and left-wingers, swing towards more authoritarian right-wing policies.  That is just one possible factor which should be considered in any objective analysis of the election.  It is simplistic to say that it was all the doing of Kim Dotcom and the odds are that even without the Dotcom factor in the electoral equation, the left would have been defeated.

New Zealanders over the age of 60 will have noted  the uncannny resemblance between the Kim Dotcom campaign and the political theatrics of the young Tim Shadbolt.  Dotcom is an opportunist, an egoist and a showman.  His saving grace is that unlike the politicians to whome we have grown accustomed, he is candid, genuine and doesn't take himself too seriously.  Those characteristics have him treading a fine line between ingenuousness and immaturity.   The "f* John Key" episode was reminiscent of radical student politics and politicians - amusing to some but off-putting to many more.    John Key was on the mark when he dubbed the Dotcom campaign a "sound and light show".   As a piece of theatre it was sometimes amusing, occasionally distasteful, and often seriously informative.  Many were happy to watch the show without any intention of casting a vote for the Internet-Mana party.  Those of us who were not impressed by his wealth still owe him a debt for lifting the lid on the ugly goings on within the New Zealand political system.  Without Kim Dotcom, John Banks would never have been brought to justice.   (Credit must also go to retired accountant Graham McCready who initiated the prosecution of John Banks for corrupt practice, after the New Zealand Police, which had become entangled in the cover-up, refused to bring a case against Banks).  The sad fact is that it took an outsider to expose the web of political corruption.

I doubt whether Dotcom's wealth or his German origins (objections raised by Sue Bradford) seriously counted against him.   If New Zealanders were generally suspicious of wealth as such, they would not vote for John Key, and if they were were strongly nationalist they would not support a political system which consigns New Zealand to the pocket of foreign powers such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.  Which brings us to the last and best outcome of the general election: the one million who boycotted a corrupt and degenerate electoral system by choosing not to vote.  The challenge now will be to develop positive alternative modes of social and political organisation.

23 September 2014

Rumour put to rest.

There is an unsigned building in Lady Ruby Drive, East Tamaki which resembles a pocket-size NSA Data Center.   I believe that this is the building referred to in the item published on this website on 21 September.   It has about 5000 square metres of floor, and is owned by Arawata Assets Ltd, which is a wholy owned subsidiary of the ANZ Bank.


Thus there is a reasonable presumption that the Lady Ruby Drive building is not connected with the NSA.  Those who wish to satisfy themselves that the building is nothing more than a warehouse can look at the site on Google Earth (which shows a picture of the building under construction, about 5 years ago, with no more recent images available).  Any resemblance to a high security NSA Data Center may be coincidental.

The state television organisation TVNZ website reports ("
" He (Edward Snowden) told those at the event that there are NSA facilities in New Zealand, with one in Auckland, and another in the north of the country.
Mr Key told media today that the director of the GCSB has told him to his knowledge there are no NSA bases on New Zealand soil.
The National Party leader said he does not believe there are NSA operatives in New Zealand, and challenged those making the claims to show physical evidence of "these mythical spy bases".
Former GCSB boss Bruce Ferguson told TV ONE's Breakfast programme that Mr Snowden was "hyping it all up" and that the message he portrayed was in his view "misleading and wrong".
He said there was "no credibility whatsoever" in the claim that there were NSA facilities in Northland and Auckland, and says when he heard this last night "any remaining credibility that I had in these people just went right out the window".
"Certainly if it happened in my time I was totally absolutely unaware of Americans or anyone else for that matter setting up spy bases in Auckland or in the North. That's a bunch of rubbish."

In short, an overwhelming volume of official denial that there is any NSA spy base in Auckland.

21 September 2014


There is an uncorroborated rumour that: the United States National Security Agency established a center of operations in East Tamaki, with the approval of Helen Clark's Labour government.  Winston Peters who evidently has knowledge of the facility, was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Clark government at the time the base was established.  Construction commenced about 2008.   The deal between the Clark government and the United States NSA would have done no harm to Clark's ambitions to take the top job in the United Nations Development Program after her administration was rejected by the New Zealand electorate in the 2008 general election.
All rather speculative, but state secrecy inevitably gives rise to public speculation.

19 September 2014

Dirty politics, mass surveillance and why they might not make a difference.

A young man canvassing for the National Party told me today that his party would win the election because New Zealanders are only interested in what goes into their "hip pocket".  Cynicism?  Undoubtedly, and a regrettable quality to find in the young, who we have always rather generously tended to credit with "youthful idealism".   Yet, for all that he may be right.  Not with respect to all New Zealanders, because a significant number among them still hold to a set of principles of one kind or another, but perhaps he was speaking for more than himself.  He may even speak for a majority of New Zealanders.   If  John Key's popularity is undented by revelations that he is dishonest and has deceived the public, then we may have to conclude that many New Zealanders actually admire such duplicity, which probably means that they themselves are willing practitioners of the art of deception.  If that is the situation, there is no simple and easy way out of the impasse.  No political speech, no editorial and no election campaign could be sufficient to expunge moral turpitude from the national psyche.   Those who want more principled politics, and that would seem to be primarily people from the left, such as Nicky Hagar, will have to find other ways to that end.   Simply exposing the moral iniquities of their antagonists will not do the trick.   In order to effectively discredit people like John Key, it would be necessary to raise the moral standards of the nation as a whole, and the dilemma of the left is that it is ill-placed to take on that challenge.   The left is fundamentally liberal, secular and materialist.  It promotes the doctrines of pragmatism and moral relativism.   However sincerely the left may abhor National Party duplicity, it cannot mount a concerted and effective offensive on John Key's administration because the fact is that Prime Minister John Key is not very different to his political antagonists on the left.  He is just one more liberal, secular, pragmatic materialist.
The same argument applies to way in which the left, through Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and others have exposed Key as a compliant tool of the United States government.   There is really no denying that this is the case.  When Sir Bruce Ferguson, former head of the GCSB, declared vehemently and repeatedly that Edward Snowden was "a traitor to his country", one would have thought "Surely this is an American speaking?  Who but a US citizen would declare with such fury that this man, who has not been charged with treason, is in fact a traitor to his country, and who but a US citizen would be so visibly affronted by Snowden's actions?"  The answer of course is "Sir Bruce Ferguson and, with him, the entire New Zealand military and security-intelligence apparatus".   The reason is that Ferguson, and those like him, have no concept of loyalty to New Zealand.   For the past two centuries New Zealand's rulers have been possessed by a colonial mentality which compels them to serve the interests of the imperial powers - first Britain, and now the United States.   The left has perhaps a glimmer of understanding that our people may have interests separate from those of the United States or Britain, but lacks the courage to do anything about it.  If David Cunnliffe were to become Prime Minister for the next three years he would serve the interests of the United States with almost as much devotion as does John Key.   If Hone Harawira is returned as the Member for Tai Tokerau he will swear allegiance to the British Queen along with 119 politicians including those from National, Labour, New Zealand First, the Green Party and any others who are lucky enough to win themselves a seat in the chamber.
A friend recently arrived from Iran put to me the question that would have been in the mind of many who do not quite understand this country: "Why do you need an ex-patriate German millionaire under threat of extradition, an American journalist residing in Brazil, a fugitive former American spy seeking sanctuary in Russia, and an Australian holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to lift the lid on New Zealand politics?  Why aren't there New Zealanders who can do this?"
The assumption on which the question is based is not entirely fair.   There are thousands of New Zealanders who want to know the truth and to tell the truth.  1600 of them packed that Auckland Town Hall on Monday night, and another 800 were left standing outside when the "house full" sign went up.   But in the normal course of things those people are given no opportunity to have their voices heard outside of their own acquaintance.  The regime is quite effective at downplaying the sense of public unease, and silencing those who might be in a position to speak up and speak the truth.   The state broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, with its propensity for telling somewhat less than half the truth, told its listeners that "about 1000" people attended the Dotcom "sound and light show", thus accentuating the  false impression that New Zealanders don't really care about what is being done in their name.
The pundits may be right.  Dirty politics and mass surveillance may not make much impression on the outcome of tomorrow's parliamentary election.  However, a  corrupt regime, even one supported by a large and compliant or complicit segment of the population, will not endure forever.  It may get away with these things for the moment, but that "success" will only make its eventual destruction all the more certain.
Aside from the regime's dirty politics, mass surveillance of its citizens and secret deals with foreign powers the only other news from the election campaign was the surprise appearance of an old acquaintance, Tame Iti, as a parliamentary candidate for the Maori Party.  Tame's decision to stand for the Maori Party, and the Maori Party's decision to take him on board, makes sense for both parties.   Tame gives the Maori party authenticity, while the Maori Party lends him respectability.  For Tame, who has beaten a track from left-wing radical activism to quasi-respectability as a Maori businessmen or cultural envoy and back again, the new aspiration for a seat in parliament, coming just months after a term of imprisonment on firearms charges, is pretty much in character.  For the Maori Party, it might make a significant difference.  Tomorrow will tell.

10 September 2014

Jamie Whyte gets it right

The ACT Party leader Jamie Whyte has pointed out that "our land" is not being sold to foreigners against our will.  He is quite right.  Lochinver Station, the example Whyte gives, is not mine.   The Stevenson family possess, occupy and hold legal title to Lochinver Station.   I do not own it and I do not occupy it.   The same applies to every other square inch of privately owned land in New Zealand, with the exception of the two thousand square meters of land at Te Ngae to which I hold legal title, which I occupy, and the possession of which I have successfully defended over two decades.

However, Whyte, who like most ideologues takes pride in consistency, is anything but consistent in this matter.  In the next breath he talks about the New Zealand state spending "our money" or "taxpayers money".  The state does not spend my money, anymore than the local Farmlands store does.   Once my money has passed over into the hands of another it is no longer mine,   The state spend its money as it sees fit.   Whether some of that money came through me in the first place is beside the point.  I do not control it, therefore it is not "mine", just as Lochinver Station is not "mine".  State assets are not "our" assets.  The state (officially "The Realm of New Zealand) is legally the property of the House of Windsor, and de facto under the control of the financial oligarchy,.

It is idle to talk about "our" land, "our" industries and "our" public assets unless we are willing to take practical steps to make that land, those industries and those assets collectively "ours".   From a practical and a legal viewpoint, I agree with Dr Whyte, but I do not share his assumption that there is a moral basis to the present distribution of wealth within New Zealand society.  I believe that every individual has the right to as much land as is necessary and sufficient to sustain themselves and their immediate family to a modest standard.  Everyone has the right to own a home, but not to own two, three or more.   No one - whether they be "New Zealander", American, Australian, British, Chinese, Israeli or German - should be allowed more or denied less.  If someone, regardless of nationality, elects to be kaitiaki to a larger holding, well and good, but they should not have the right, transferable or otherwise, to exclusive possession or the fruits of the land.

The real issue confronting us is the gross inequality of New Zealand society, which allows people like the Stevenson family to possess far greater wealth than is required to provide the necessaries of life while other New Zealanders live in a state of deprivation, frustration and occasional desperation.  "Foreign ownership" is at best a side issue, and at worst a distraction from the real problems of our society.

6 September 2014

New Zealanders should follow their monarch's example - to a point.

New Zealanders should follow the lead of their Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, by remaining aloof from the tawdry world of electoral politics, and refraining from casting a vote in the coming parliamentary elections.
In all other respects, however, they should abjure her example.   They should not turn a blind eye to the iniquities being perpetrated in their name.  They should not turn a deaf ear to the cries of distress from the poor, exploited and oppressed of the world. They should not remain impassive and silent in the face of greed and stupidity.  In short, they should do nothing to bolster or encourage this unconscionable regime, and everything within their power to bring it to an end.

5 September 2014

A "race-based" system? Divisions over race issues on the right of politics.

From 1940 through to 1990 the New Zealand right was united under the umbrella of the pragmatic "middle of the road" New Zealand National Party.  The party had its liberals and social conservatives, traditionalists and innovators but by and large it stuck to the middle ground, accepting gradual social reform in matters such as social welfare, capital punishment, marriage law and race relations while pursuing a policy in which state provision of economic infrastructure and social services combined with a market economy and a nascent economic nationalism co-existed with deference to the global economic and military power of Britain and the United States.   Significantly, National Party leaders were still speaking of and for  "the British race" into the nineteen-sixties and seventies, and it was openly acknowledged, with some degree of pride, that New Zealand was a race-based society, for the best and most benign of reasons.

That changed in the latter decades of the twentieth century as the economic and social consensus in the National Party came under strain from a changing global economy, alterations in the geo-political balance of power, and the economic reforms of the fourth Labour government, which had for a time outflanked National on its right.  Things have never been the same since.  The National Party remains the dominant political force, but there are now five "minor" parties on the right (actually two minor parties and three micro-parties) which bear witness to the sharpening of the contradictions previously blunted and softened by decades of mid-twentieth century pragmatism.

From the perspective of the National Party, the function of the minor parties (the Maori Party and New Zealand First) is to provide coalition partners in the event that National does not have the numbers in parliament to govern alone.  Relations with these parties have the potential to be fractious.  The function of the micro parties ("the cup of tea" parties, ACT, United Future and Conservative, which have a cosy relationship with the National Party) is to articulate conflicting positions which had previously been subsumed within the broad church of the National Party. Social liberalism is articulated by the ACT Party, social conservatism by the Conservative Party and immigrant multi-culturalism by the United Future Party.  Perhaps more importantly the micro-parties also function as social and electoral indicators.  A surge in support for the Conservative Party would suggest that National would have to tread more carefully on moral issues (marriage law, abortion, traditional family values, alcohol, gambling, illicit drugs and so on) while increasing support for ACT would signal scope for a policy shift in favour of greater social and economic freedoms, and a stronger United Future Party would suggest that more attention should be given to the aspirations of immigrant ethnic minorities.

Of the two minor parties on the right, the New Zealand First Party, represents the traditionalist reaction to each of these divergent micro-party trends.   It is economically and socially conservative.  It represents those of British and Maori descent who view the Treaty of Waitangi as the coalescence of two peoples into one.   New Zealand First is in fact  the present day incarnation of the orthodox National Party of the mid-twentieth century.  The last member of the right-wing coalition is the Maori Party, which stands in the tradition of prominent, though relatively isolated, Maori leaders aligned to the National Party, such as Sir James Henare and Sir Graham Latimer.

The fact that  ACT, United Future and the Maori Party were originally splinters from the Labour Party does not alter the fact that their true political home is on the right.  If anything, they sit much more comfortably with National than does New Zealand First, which is the only one among the five splinter groups to have emerged out of the National Party itself.

Even as five parties the right remains a surprisingly cohesive whole.  Pragmatism still predominates over ideology, and all six parties can accommodate to a broad right-wing political programme.   One issue on which they are unanimous is foreign policy.  All six support the close political and military  association with Britain and the United States and the constitutional ties between New Zealand and the United Kingdom through the institution of the British monarchy.

Foreign policy takes high political priority in New Zealand for two reasons.  First, because it is closely linked to trade (a former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon actually observed "New Zealand's foreign policy is trade") and second because New Zealand "national identity" is founded on its external connections.

The things that unite Maori and Pakeha (at least those Maori and Pakeha who support the current regime) are the Treaty of Waitangi and hence the sovereignty of the British Crown, and the military tradition historically manifest in such actions as the Anzac Gallipoli campaign and the campaigns of the Maori Battalion in North Africa.

The internal counterparts to the external events and associations which underpin New Zealand "national identity" are the struggle between British colonists and Maori tribes for sovereign authority, and the ensuing nineteenth century wars.   Thus New Zealand's internal history, and the actual forces at work within the country today, tend to undermine the notion of "national identity" on which the regime is based and for that reason "New Zealand national identity" is always referenced to external events and relationships and virtually never to New Zealand's own history or current situation.

The paradox of a "national identity" that can only be sustained by reference to wars in foreign theatres fought on behalf of foreign powers, and acts of subservience to foreign political institutions is but one manifestation of the fundamental racial contradiction afflicting New Zealand politics.

Another is the internal squabble on the right over "race-based" policies.  United Future, which has deliberately and quite opportunistically gone out to gain the support of ethnic minority immigrant groups, castigates New Zealand First as "racist".  New Zealand First for its part declares that it will not join  in coalition with a "race-based" party such as the Maori Party.  The ACT and Conservative parties  both campaign against what they call a "race-based" political system (specifically the existence of the Maori electoral seats in the House or Representatives), yet neither seeks to ask whether the constitutional provision which incontestably and for all time vests the office of Head of State in the British House of Windsor might not also be "race-based".

The simple reality is that the political system has been race-based since the day the colony of New Zealand was founded.   Until fifty years ago politicians from both ends of the political spectrum took pride in the fact that New Zealand was a race-based society.  Nothing has changed since, except for a growing sense of unease in the political subconsciousness.  The  arguments between the minor and micro right-wing parties over racial issues, show that race remains a fundamental issue in New Zealand society and the chief source of political division on the right.

25 July 2014

"Dance of the Peacocks"

While browsing the local opportunity shop recently I happened upon a copy of "Dance of the Peacocks: New Zealanders in exile in the time of Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung" by James McNeish.  For those who don't know, the book tells the story of five New Zealand Rhodes Scholars from the 1930s  - James Bertram, Ian Milner, John Mulgan, Geoffrey Cox and Dan Davin - whose names are reasonably well known to an older generation of New Zealanders.  In his book McNeish explores what these five had in common, which was quite a lot.  For a start, they were all intellectuals, hardly surprising given their status as Rhodes Scholars. More pertinently, all had leftist political sympathies, and took a prominent role, as "scholars and soldiers" to adopt Davin's phrase, in the anti-fascist struggle which erupted in the Spanish Civil War and reached a climax in the Second World War.

Through their writings (Mulgan's "Man Alone" and "Report on Experience", Bertram's "Crisis in China","Return to China" and works of New Zealand literary criticism, Cox's "The Defence of Madrid", "The Red Army Moves"and  "The Road to Trieste") these five had a significant  influence among  educated and leftist New Zealanders during the  post-war years.

Yet despite their intellectual brilliance, courage and determination, for the most part the "Peacocks" left no great legacy in this country.  Paddy Costello, the "Sixth Man" to McNeish's five peacocks, who was a brilliant linguist, speaking eight or nine languages including French, Italian, Greek, Russian and Persian, but apparently no Maori, seemed to hardly know New Zealand.  It is reported that his first visit to Wellington took place about the time that plans were in train to have him railroaded out of the New Zealand diplomatic service. Costello's and Davin's children, as talented and socially committed as their parents, were raised as Europeans, and have remained so.  Milner lived and worked as a university professor in communist Czechoslovakia for the post-war years and was childless. Only Bertram, also childless, returned to live in New Zealand, where he lived out his years as a professor at Victoria University.

None of the six could be described as an "exile" in the normal sense of the word.  Although Milner and Costello were sacked from the state service because of their communist sympathies, all were more or less free to return to New Zealand if they had chosen.  The way McNeish puts it there simply wasn't a place for them in New Zealand. They did not fit.  New Zealand could not satisfy their aspirations, which says as much about the nature of their aspirations as it does about New Zealand.

It is a curiously significant fact that four of McNeish's six were shaped by two staunchly imperialist schools.  Mulgan and Costello attended Auckland Grammar School and Milner and Bertram Waitaki Boys' High School.  Cox was educated at Southland Boys High School, and Davin at a Catholic secondary school, also in Southland, where the imperial influence would have been less in evidence.  Whether  coincidence or not, Davin and Cox, who were not force-fed on imperialist doctrines, rose to prominence in Britain and had successful careers. Cox was knighted for his services to British journalism, and Davin received the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) for his work at the Oxford University Press.  Milner and Costello, on the other hand, who had been indoctrinated in the glories of empire, spent their lives working in foreign universities (Prague and Manchester respectively), shunned by the New Zealand government.  Bertram, another  Waitaki old-boy, finally succeeded in gaining an academic post in New Zealand despite intense political antagonism, and, arguably, in the face of his own mis-givings.

In any other colonial society - say on the Indian subcontinent, or in East Africa - six such intellectuals with Marxist leanings would have most likely been absorbed into, or become the leaders of, movements for national independence.  Instead, they became exiles.  The political intolerance, and outright persecution, to which Bertram, Costello, Milner and Mulgan were subject was a peculiarly colonial phenomenon.  Because those New Zealanders in positions of authority have no real sense of New Zealand as a nation unto itself, there is no way  in which they can perceive those of different political persuasions as still being "one of our kind".  Their touchstone is the doctrine of empire, and any challenge to that doctrine puts the challenger beyond the pale of acceptable society. In that respect the English themselves, who possess a history and a culture that precedes and exists independently of the imperial system, can be more tolerant and accommodating of political differences than the colonial authorities in New Zealand.

But the endemic alienation of New Zealand intellectuals in the twentieth century had just as much due to the with their world view as with the political intolerance of the governing classes.  Young New Zealanders of the time were cast into a particular mould.  Their thoughts, ambitions and aspirations were all directed towards Britain, British culture, and, through British culture, a wider European civilization.  The Rhodes Scholarship itself is the epitome of colonialism.  Its purpose is to point young men and women from the colonies towards England, the centre of the empire.

McNeish asks the question "Why did so few Rhodes Scholars return to New Zealand?" and fails to come up with a satisfactory answer.

The explanation, it seems to me, is quite simple.

The Rhodes Scholarship system was founded on the premise that the best education for a colonial was to be had at Oxford University.  For those who accepted the premise, and valued the life of the intellect, it must follow that to return to New Zealand would be to return to the second rate.  None of the "peacocks" could easily contemplate such a fate, and Bertram was the only one of the six who did in fact return - some would say to a life of academic mediocrity. The colonial education system which made such redoubtable scholars of these brilliant young men also destroyed their capacity to relate positively to their own country and their own people.  When they reacted against the ideology of empire propagated at Waitaki Boys High and Auckland Grammar, it was only to adopt a rival imperialist doctrines of Soviet Marxism.  New Zealand colonialism, as an adjunct of British imperialism, inspired a passion for the grand project, an all-embracing ideology and a global culture which, by the nineteen-thirties, British imperialism was no longer capable of satisfying.  Hence the pull of Marxism, followed, in the case of Cox, Davin and Costello, by a retreat into the rather more mundane reality of the post-war British intelligentsia.

Milner remained in Prague, to the end of his life, as a now somewhat disillusioned servant of the Czech state.   Cox and Davin were taken into the bosom of the British establishment, which is not to say that they rejected, or were rejected by, their folks back home.  For Bertram, returning to New Zealand was in part vindication, and in part a form of surrender.  Bertram, Milner and Costello remained more or less beyond the pale, while respected, admired and even loved by those New Zealanders who took a more independent stance to the world at large.

Mulgan, who could not face the prospect of surrender, whether by staying in Britain or returning to New Zealand, was dead.  Yet from among McNeish's "peacocks" it is his legacy, drawn from a brief life and resting on two short works, which history may record as having the greatest impact of all within our own country and upon our own people.

26 June 2014

"Intimate Partner Violence"

As with so much social and political discourse these days, there is a new phrase and an acronym for domestic violence - "Intimate Partner Violence, IPV" - with precious little in the way of reasoned analysis and debate.  There are also moves to institute an extra-judicial system for the management of "IPV"  which goes by the name of ODARA (Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment).

Because ODARA is a proprietary system which is in the public domain, and hence is not subject to public scrutiny, it should not be allowed to  be turned into come a quasi-judicial instrument of state intervention in domestic relationships.   Both the rule of law and the law of reason require transparency in the administration of justice.  Public policy and administration should not be allowed to follow essentially secret systems or procedures.   I believe that is all that needs to be said about the New Zealand Police advocacy for the ODARA system.

The "risk factors" for "Intimate Partner Violence" as currently recognised by the New Zealand Police are at least a matter of public record.  They are:

1 Recent change in relationship status
2 Offender wanting to renew the relationship
3 Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence
4 Chronic violence in the relationship
5 Violence - increasing severity/frequency
6 Victim believes offender could kill or injure her
7 Offender has strangled the victim
8 Offender has threatened/attempted suicide
9 Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others
10 Offender has a history of violence against others
11 Offender has stalked the victim
12 Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy
13 Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure
14 Offender has history of drug / alcohol use
15 Offender has diagnosed mental illness
16 Offender has diagnosed personality disorder

It is useful to categorise these factors as follows:

Situational factors are directly causal. There is only one factor in this category, i.e.:
"Recent change in relationship status"

Circumstantial factors are not the direct causes of violence, but may pre-dispose to the use of violence.
There are four factors in this category:
"Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure"
"Offender has history of drug / alcohol use"
"Offender has diagnosed mental illness"
"Offender has diagnosed personality disorder"
Realistically, society can only reduce these circumstantial risk factors by programmes not directly related to "intimate partner violence", such as provision of full employment, economic equality, financial prudence, temperance, programmes to reduce or eliminate alchohol and other drug use, and ready access to quality mental health services.

State of mind.
State of mind factors are real undisputed indicators of the desires, thoughts and emotions of the offender.  The offender does not accept the situational change in his life ("Recent change in relationship status") and his response may be to contemplate violence towards himself or others.
There are three factors in this category:
"Offender wanting to renew the relationship"
"Offender has threatened/attempted suicide"
"Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others"
Intervention can work at persuading the offender that he should give up his desire to maintain the relationship, accept that the change is irrevocable, or find more constructive ways to attempt to resume the relationship.  However all such interventions, with the exception of the last, are problematic, and the last can be extremely difficult to effect.   Aldous Huxley's "brave new world" of casual sex remains a curious fiction.   People in general do not give up their intimate relationships lightly.  They continue to respond emotionally to specific situations and circumstances in ways that are predetermined by their fundamental nature, which includes elements of "possessiveness" and "sexual jealousy".   While it is possible to change the way people think and behave, psychological or political propaganda tends to have limited effect and only over a short period of time.   Persuading an offender that he should either not want to retain his relationship, or should not want it so badly as to contemplate extreme measures such as murder or suicide will not necessarily be easy.

Implied state of mind
Implied state of mind factors are those which point to the offender's state of mind without being overtly acknowledged by him, and they may be subject to differing interpretations.
There are two factors in this category:
"Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy"
"Offender has stalked the victim"
In the real world, sexual relationships are characterised by trust and fidelity on the one hand or jealousy on the other.
Sexual jealousy (of which stalking may be one expression and private investigations another more socially acceptable one) is a normal human trait, which, and is usually only manifest within a pre-existing intimate relationship.  It is an aspect of human nature which may be moderated, but not eliminated.

Inferred state of mind
Inferred state of mind is not acknowledged by the offender, and lacks an evidential basis.
There are two factors in this category:
"Victim believes offender could kill or injure her"
"Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence"
Inferred state of mind more problematic than implied state of mind.    "Beliefs" which may be genuine and well-founded, but are not necessarily either.   They may be feigned or unfounded.   Therefore from a legal and human point of view, beliefs need to be treated with considerable caution.
Perhaps more importantly, The category of "psychological violence" is yet another instance of re-writing the dictionary to merge distinctly different behaviours into a single broad and indiscriminate category.  This is to run counter to the process by which over the millennia human beings have come to more accurately describe, analyse and manage their world by making ever finer distinctions between things.
The distinctions between persuasion, intimidation, coercion and violence are important.  Without them we have no proper means of distinguishing between a mother guiding the behaviour of her child, the evangelist who turns up on the doorstep on a Saturday morning, the policeman shows his uniform in a public bar and the thug who carries out an unprovoked assault.   There must be a distinction between violence as the use of physical force (proscribed) and various forms of psychological control or persuasion (tolerated to varying degrees according to circumstances) if society is to function with any degree of freedom, harmony and personal engagement.  It is that simple.  There is nothing to be gained from redefining  "psychological abuse" ( "a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder") as "psychological violence".
The phrase "frozen violence", attributed to G F Hegel,  may be a dramatic and even apt description of the nature of state power, but it does not confer the right to charge any particular state with employing "violence" against its citizens.   Judgement must be based on evidence with more substance than a fiigure of speech.
In any rational analysis, the category of "violence" itself must be subject to the further distinctions between "unprovoked assault", "aggression" or "assault" and "resistance" or "defence".. "Violence" is not a crime in New Zealand or any other jurisdiction.  The use of violence is conditionally permitted as a defence against assault in domestic law, and as a defence against aggression in international law while assault and aggression respectively are deemed to be unlawful.  The distinction is usually blurred for political reasons - for example one party to a dispute, most often the aggressor, may demand that the other party "renounce the use of violence", which is to say "renounce the right of self-defence".   In a society or a world where the "rule of law" applies, "assault" is deemed a crime and "violence" is not.  A  civilized order will not encourage violence even in self-defence, but it will tolerate violent resistance to assault where no other form of protection or defence is available to the victim..
The police case, and the public discussion of the problem of domestic assault, should follow the definitions and distinctions which have existed in common law from the beginnings of western civilisation.   They should not be based on the fashionable yet fallacious premise that  persuasion, coercion,  intimidation, self-defence and assault as though all are merely differing forms of "violence".
The drive to abolish distinctions is a phenomenon deeply rooted in the liberal psyche.   We saw it in Mike Moore's famous statement to the effect that "a chicken is just a bag of wheat in another form".   We saw it in the marriage debate, where liberals insisted that there is no distinction to be made between the procreative act of sexual intercourse and a host of other sexual practices associated with homosexuality and out of which the law has deemed that there is no distinction to be made between marriage between a man and woman and a homosexual relationship.  The global liberal project has constructed a new Tower of Babel in which "one tongue" and "few words" are deemed sufficient to serve the purposes of a universal ideology.   The effect is to inhibit thought and stymie debate, and the outcome will be confusion, factionalism and ultimate collapse.

Historical factors are "on the record" past offences.
There are four factors in this category:
"Offender has a history of violence against others"
"Chronic violence in the relationship"
"Violence - increasing severity/frequency"
"Offender has strangled the victim"
Historical factors are critical risk indicators, but are only relevant when no current offence has been committed.  If an offence has been currently committed, then that offence becomes the matter at issue, and the cause of response.  If no offence has been currently committed, then the vital question must be whether the prospective offenders current state of mind is congruent with his past record of offences, and that cannot be taken for granted in every case.   A history of offences provides some reason to suspect that further offences may follow and good grounds to determine how the offender should be treated in the event that he does commit a further offence, but it does not provide grounds on which to respond as though a new offence has been committed.

Now we come to the crux of the matter.  If the aim is to reduce intimate partner violence, then systems designed to identify potential offenders do not provide a humanly or legally satisfactory response.  The most direct means to reduce family violence would be through working on the causes - the situational and circumstantial factors.  Specifically, since "Recent change in relationship status" is the only cited situational cause of intimate partner violence, it makes sense to encourage permanence, implying a reduced emphasis upon freedom, in intimate relationships.

It is curious that the nature of the intimate relationship - for example defacto or legal marriage - does not figure among the risk factors. Neither does ethnicity, which is known to be statistically associated with the frequency of domestic violence, or the religious persuasion of the offender and victim..   One suspects that these factors have been omitted from the list for political rather than statistical reasons.   Secular liberals might be embarrassed to discover that a legal or church union, or adherence to a particular religious belief, has a bearing, one way or the other, on the incidence of domestic violence.  Reasoning in the abstract, as liberals are prone to do, one can easily come to the conclusion that a committed long term family relationship is a committed long term family relationship regardless of whether that relationship has been sanctioned by church or state.   Yet if the statistics point to the contrary conclusion society should take note.  Religious persuasion is a more awkward subject, due to privacy concerns surrounding religious belief, the principle of separation of church and state and secular suspicion of religious movements.  Yet again the question needs to be addressed.  Can adherence to specific religious beliefs reduce or increase the risk of domestic violence?

Reduction in intimate partner violence will not come without cost, and the cost in this case is that commitment should be put before freedom.  Western secularism has forgotten, to its cost, that the original purpose of civil laws is not to impose arbitrary prejudices but to restrict those human behaviours which in the natural course incite passionate anger in others, with consequent disruption to the social order.  Other freedoms - the freedom to make, sell and consume alcoholic liquor, and various financial freedoms may also need to be sacrificed to the cause of family and social harmony.   Freedoms also come at a cost, and for New Zealand one of the costs of unrestricted sexual freedom has been intimate partner violence.   The liberal establishment believes that the cost can be got around through the use of psychological interventions, extra-judicial systems and vigorous repression of the more extreme manifestations of what are quite normal human passions.   I wish them well.

2 June 2014

Elliot Rodger and the matter of self-worth

Elliot Rodger was the 22 year old son of an affluent and liberal family Hollywood family.  He killed seven people, himself included, in Santa Barbara, California out of apparent frustration at his failure to form intimate relationship with anyone of the opposite sex.   Liberals will argue that these deaths were the result of unrestricted access to firearms.  The gun lobby will counter that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Both conservatives and liberals are right within their own terms of reference, yet both fail to see the whole picture. The gun lobby helps to provide an efficient means for killing people, but it is liberalism which provides the conditions in which men are psychologically motivated to kill randomly and indiscriminately. Some dismiss the killings as the act of a deranged man which cannot be subjected to rational analysis. Others attribute the massacre to "misogyny".  Both claims can be refuted.  Rodger's "manifesto" was not irrational in the strict sense of the word, and his misogyny arose out of thwarted desire for rather than the intrinsic dislike of women which is true misogyny.

Most, if not all, mass killings are conducted by those who are thwarted in the pursuit of the happiness which they believe to be the right of every American, and every member of a secular liberal society.

Rodger was apparently denied the sexual favours of young women, to which he believed he had some entitlement.  Such a conviction could only arise in a mind of liberal persuasion, and, practically speaking, in a society which held to liberal values.   Rodger saw that the young women around him were free to distribute their sexual favours as they saw fit.  In his eyes, the measure of their sexual freedom  became the measure of their contempt for he alone who did not benefit from the exercise of their prerogative.

He could not have thought that way in a society where young women are not permitted to offer sexual intimacy except in marriage.  In that situation he would have seen women as restrained by law and custom, rather than exercising a  personal prerogative in wilful contempt of his value and needs as a human being. He would not have thought that way in a society where the pursuit of personal happiness was subordinate to the obligation to do good and follow the principles of religion, and he would not have acted as he did in a society where personal worth was measured by the capacity to restrain desire as much, if not more than, the capacity to gratify it.

Rodger was obsessed firstly with his own sense of self-worth, and secondly with the sexual gratification which he believed was a necesssary entitlement in consequence of his worth as an individual. In these respects he reflects the dubious assumptions of a liberal society, namely that self-esteem has significant value, personal happiness is the proper end of existence, and there is an implicit connection between individual worth and the attainment of personal happiness.

The Santa Barbara massacre was one young man's tragically misguided attempt to assert his self-worth in a society in which  personal gratification has become the only measure of value.

In liberal society there is a widespread mistaken belief that restrictive moral laws, regulations and customs are there to obstruct the road to personal happiness and for no good purpose, when in fact, laws are in place not so much to prevent the prohibited acts themselves, as the social consequences of such acts.  Every year in New Zealand a number of people, mainly women, will be killed for committing adultery, while in Iran, where adultery is a capital offence, such killings (and corresponding judicial executions) are rare.  When social sanctions are removed, personal passions will surface to fill the void, and conversely when social sanctions are imposed, personal passion is placed in check.  The liberal project has failed to come to terms with, or even to recognise that fundamental reality of human social existence.

Moral laws reflect the innate the human understandings of right and wrong, fairness and unfairness, and their one purpose is to preclude individuals from privately negating the consequences of perceived unfairness in ways which are inimical to the social order..

Liberals will quite rightly argue that no sense of personal grievance can justify murder, but they should not deny the reality that whenever a personal prerogative eclipses ancient law or custom, grievances will inevitably follow, often with tragic consequences.

12 May 2014

A fallen angel

In Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religious belief the character of Lucifer ("angel of light", "morning star", "star of the day" , "shining one" or "shining star") is associated with the "powers-that-be" or political authorities in the world symbolized by the city of Babylon. In the story, God cast Lucifer out of heaven because Lucifer, the angel of light, refused to submit himself to the archetypal human being, Adam.

There is a counter-intuitive subtlety to the story of Lucifer.   We might wonder why an angel should submit to a mere human being, even to Adam as the type of all humanity.   We might also see good and evil as intrinsically opposed to each other, and wonder how it is that an archangel, the  personification of good, could almost instantly be turned into the personification of evil.

This ancient story actually addresses the very modern problem of the proper place of ideology in the life of humanity.   From the moment when ideology, or for that matter theology, is allowed to prevail over simple humanity -  when  Lucifer refuses to submit to Adam - ideology starts to serve the cause of evil.    Jesus of Nazareth expressed the same idea in saying "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath".  He was not saying that the sabbath was of no use.  After all the sabbath was "made for man".  He was making a rather more subtle point, that ideology, even a "good" ideology, must not prevail over our simple human duty to feed the hungry or lighten the burden of the oppressed.

We may conveniently forget that for two decades prior to the Second World War there was great sympathy for fascism throughout Europe, the United States and the British colonies, including New Zealand.   Fascism was seen as the way to scientific and technological enlightenment, social order, material progress and healthy living.  To a degree, it was all those things.  But fascism fell from grace when the fascists came to believe that their ideology and the "light" that it brought to the world, should take precedence over the claims of common humanity.

Over centuries, rather than decades, European liberalism has made a similar progression from the heady freedom of the eighteenth century "Enlightenment" to the atrocities of Hiroshima, the Vietnam war, Mazar i Sharif, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.  During this time its ideology and rhetoric has changed little.  Like Lucifer, it still presents a  radiant face to the world, but it has abandoned its association with God and no longer serves the cause of Man.

9 May 2014

Drugs and the liberal ideology

The liberal ideology rests on a combination of dogma (such as belief in the efficacy of an idealised free market) and pragma (such as the argument that people are naturally selfish and therefore idealistic social imperatives have no serious prospects).  Among the political classes and within the mass media both the dogma and the pragma of liberalism reign virtually unchallenged.   Parliamentary political parties of both the left and the right embrace the "free market" theory of capitalism, the "free love" theory of sexual relationship, and with certain pragmatic reservations, the "freedom to choose" approach to use of psychoactive substances.   Restrictions on the ability of the individual to enter into any kind of transaction - buying or selling labour, sex, drugs or political influence - are abhorred.  The "pursuit of happiness" is the sole social imperative.  This historic liberal consensus underlay Parliament's decision to establish a legal regime for the sale of synthetic cannabinoid drugs, by a vote of 119 for to 1 against.

However, while liberalism is now the sole ideology of the political classes in New Zealand, from the far right to the extreme left, neither the people nor the experts who have direct knowledge of social and economic reality, are able to be convinced by liberal dogma.  It was the opposition of an unimpressed public which forced Parliament to make a U-turn and effectively prohibit the sale of synthetic cannabinoids.   Public opinion, informed by direct experience of the evils that liberal dogma has inflicted upon society, was supported by those who have expert knowledge of the physiological effects of the drugs.  Dr Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre came out in favour of prohibition saying "Prohibition works.  It works very well".  To the political establishment, Schep's comment is the ultimate heresy.  Yet he happens to be right.  Prohibition does work.  It does not work perfectly, but in the right context it works "very well".

Grant Hall, of legal high industry lobby "Star Trust", claimed in response that all forms of cannabis, including synthetics are "low-risk".  He cited alleged "propaganda against consumers of low-risk psychoactives" and insisted ''this discrimination needs to stop''.  Hall takes a classic liberal position.   He invokes the spectre of "discrimination" and implies that hostile propaganda is directed against the "consumers" of the drugs rather than the behaviour which we call "drug abuse".   Hall perfectly expresses, and is himself the perfect expression of, liberal dogma and pragma.  He is a man for sale, paid to enter the public debate on behalf of vested interests.  As was the case with the arguments in favour of homosexual marriage (and before that "economic de-regulation") he strives to create the impression that the debate concerns  the rights of individuals ("the consumers") and has nothing to do with fundamental principles relating to the general good.

At the same time the advocates of legal highs resort to blackmail, both emotional  ("if prohibition is imposed users will suffer horrific withdrawal symptoms") and social ("prohibition will lead to an explosion of crime as organised gangs take over supply and users steal or rob to support their addiction").   This is reminiscent of the emotional blackmail used support of changes to the Marriage Act, which boiled down to the claim that in the absence of state sponsored sodomy young men and women would kill themselves in great numbers.  Such claims are unfounded, dishonest and disgraceful.   The evidence, and impartial expert opinion, in the present case suggests that the nett social effect of prohibition will be positive.  It is time we had another Leo Schep to tell the political classes "We must discriminate between the good, the bad and the ugly and we must exercise judgement if we are to survive.  Dogmatic assertions that all substances and all behaviours should be subject to the same rules will not cut the mustard".

The state broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, which emphatically endorses liberal ideology to the exclusion of any other point of view, scored an own goal by broadcasting the response of a supposedly typical "legal high" consumer in which he articulated his lifestyle (staying home and getting high with his mates as often as possible) his priorities (buying cannabinoids takes precedence over access to health services)  and threatened response to prohibition (involvement in the illegal trade, and engagement in other criminal activities such as theft, burglary and robbery in order to sustain the illegal habit).   In fact this person is probably not typical of "legal high" users, and sustaining his particular approach to life does not merit any special social or legal provision.  That judgement does not amount to "discrimination" against the "consumer".   It is to be hoped that particular "consumer" will find a better more socially constructive purpose in life if his supply of drugs is removed.   The argument that he "cannot help himself" would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  He must either help himself or suffer the consequences himself.   Society also has an interest in helping, but helping him to become a responsible member of the community - not helping him to pursue his own "personal choices" in life.

8 May 2014

Deceptions of  the drug trade

"Prohibition doesn't work".  This claim has been repeated so often that people have come to believe it is true.  Yet all the evidence shows that prohibition does work.   When manufacture, trade or use of any commodity is prohibited the supply and consumption of that commodity declines.   Demand also declines, because the social disapprobration implicit in legal prohibition discourages casual or experimental use of drugs.

"Organised crime takes over the manufacture and distribution of any prohibited commodity".  This is a truism.  If trade in a particular commodity is prohibited by law, then people who engage in that trade are by definition criminals.  However the reality is that organised crime is attracted to the commercialisation of  any kind of human vice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.  Both globally and locally criminal gangs are involved in the business of legal prostitution and gambling.  Unpleasant people become involved in unpleasant activities, and the people who have been involved in the legal trade in synthetic cannabis to this point have been at best amoral, and at worst thoroughly nasty types.  New Zealanders are being asked to pander to organised crime by legalising every form of human vice, and no society can afford to do that.

"We need to control demand.  Supply side control doesn't work".   This claim is disingenuous.   The liberals who argue against control of supply are the same people who try to justify "moderate" drug use on the grounds of personal gratification and social utility.  They don't want control of supply because they want to satisfy the demand.  They themselves do nothing to counter the demand for drugs.

"Regulation is better than prohibition".  Regulation puts the stamp of social approval on drug use, and creates the false impression that regulated drugs are "safe" drugs.  It gives a wide range of people and institutions (including merchants, regulators, politicians and the treasury) a financial stake in the drug industry, and thereby  a motive to maintain and expand the trade in drugs.  It provides a basis for the self-justifying tautological liberal catch-cry "It (prostitution/ gambling/ liquor/ tobacco/ synthetic cannabis) is a legal industry and therefore should not face any form of discrimination or hostile bias".

"Users will suffer severe withdrawal symptoms when drugs are prohibited"   That is true, but it is not a valid argument against prohibition.  Once social evils have been tolerated and allowed to take root in society, the process of returning to a more normal state of existence will involve considerable individual suffering and significant social costs, but the suffering and the costs of allowing the evil to continue unabated will be much much greater.   In 2008 liberal financial and economic  policies lead to a crisis in which financial institutions collapsed and thousands of New Zealanders lost their lifetime savings.  Would it have been practical to keep the credit flowing and maintain investors on a perpetual high?  It would not have been.   Those who were the essentially innocent, albeit misguided, victims of the financial institutions felt the pain, learned from the experience and moved on.  They had  a social safety net to save them from absolute destitution.   The same must apply to the users of synthetic cannabinoids.  The health system is there to help users, but it is the users themselves who must work through the pain of withdrawal and move on to a more independent and sustainable lifestyle.

6 May 2014

Sue and Hone meet Kim

The marriage of convenience between Hone Harawira's Mana Party and the radical pakeha left, in the likes of Sue Bradford and John Minto now looks likely to be replaced with another marriage of convenience, between Hone's Mana Party and Kim Dotcom's Internet Party.

Sue Bradford's response to the prospect of a Mana/Dotcom alliance is revealing.  She bags Dotcom for being a "multi-millionaire, neo-liberal German with a trail of convictions".

Yet Bradford also has a "trail of convictions".  I spent a night in the cells, along with Sue, then a 16 year old girl and thirty other activists in 1969 after we had successfully occupied the United States consulate in Auckland in protest against the US-led invasion of Vietnam, and that was the first of many convictions which Sue acquired in the course of a lifetime of political activism.

Dotcom is liberal.   Sue is also a liberal.

Dotcom is a multi-millionaire.  Sue is comfortably off, and even affluent by comparison to those dispossessed and downtrodden whose cause she champions.
Apart from his being "German" the differences between Bradford and Dotcom come down to degrees, and Sue's failure to come up with any absolute point of difference between herself and Dotcom is evidence of the shallowness of leftwing politics.

By the logic of the New Zealand political system, the alliance with Kim Dotcom makes sense for Mana.  Dotcom appeals to something in the NZ psyche.   He is an iconoclast, rebel and stirrer; someone who gives it to the government, the police and the bureaucracy.  Being a foreigner and being wealthy only add to his appeal.  He is in many ways rather like Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt, another cheerful iconoclast who the New Zealand public have taken to their hearts.  (As it happens, Tim was another one of the thirty who sat in the US Consulate back in March of 1969).

The contrast between Sue's and Tim's career is instructive.

Tim succeeded because he had an attainable goal.   As a charismatic individual and self-confessed egoist he wanted to be at the head of something - as he put it "I want to be Mayor and I don't care where".  As far as I am aware he never belonged to any political organisation except the one that he founded as his vehicle for entry into student politics at Auckland University - Ausapocpah.   He generally avoided any kind of seriousness or ideological commitment, and that was a key to his political success.   People like him because he is good humoured, and they know that when you get Tim, Tim is is all that you get.  He has no ideological baggage and no hidden agenda.  He is pragmatic and sensible without being grey or boring.  Such principles as he has are not allowed to get in the way of his commitment to keeping the citizens of Invercargill happy, and their council well ordered.   When he doesn't make people laugh, he at least makes them smile.

Sue's approach to life and politics has been very different.   She takes her beliefs very seriously, and she has been through a succession of political parties and organisations - from the Progressive Youth Movement, through the Communist, New Labour, the Green and Mana parties, each of which she hoped would be the vehicle for realising her dreams of a just society. To my surprise, she succeeded in making the transition from working class activist to Green Party parliamentarian, even though it obliged her also to adopt a pragmatic approach and even some compromises of principle.  In the end though, she was not a good enough fit and she left the party after she was personally betrayed by one of her Party colleagues from the early days whom she had trusted implicitly.

There have been high points in Sue's political career.  Entering parliament would be considered one.   The passage of the "anti-smacking" legislation would be another.   But on the whole she has enjoyed some minor successes while never coming close to realising her utopian deam of "social justice for all" in New Zealand.  She has not found an enduring political home, because in the final analysis her political aspirations are incompatible with the pragmatism required to realise the more selfish goals of those with whom she allied herself.  Sue's attempts to implement her ideals through the Communist, New Labour, Green and Mana parties failed.  She needs to generalise that sufficiency of experience, and  understand that her transcendental ideals cannot be achieved through any kind of political party.

Dotcom, on the other hand, may very well succeed in his simple ambition to stay in his Helensville mansion and out of a United States penitentiary.    It does not worry the voting public that he is opportunistic.  He entertains and amuses them while poking a stick at the political establishment. He is a good fit for Mana and Hone Harawira who, despite his reputation for wild radicalism, is a political pragmatist quite willing to do business with Mr Dotcom and his Internet Party.

29 April 2014

Compulsory KiwiSaver

The New Zealand Labour Party, which once held itself up to be the party of the working class, now proposes to force every working New Zealander to become a capitalist through compulsory membership of one or other of the "KiwiSaver" private superannuation funds.  If theNZLP wins the next election, will it allow exemption from the "KiwiSaver" regime for those who object to appropriating surplus value in the form of rent, interest or profits?  That is the least that Labour should offer.  By rights, the party should keep its nose out of workers' business, and its hands out of workers' pockets, which means no compulsory "KiwiSaver" under any circumstances.

Synthetic cannabinoids

New Zealand has been awash with drugs since the British found that as a means to subjugate our people  rum and tobacco were more effective than muskets.  The corrollary is also true - abstaining from drugs, including alcohol and tobacco is a first step to  liberation.   The regime benefits from taxes on the trade in alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and synthetic cannabinoids and also recognises that a stoned people will be a quiescent people.   Those are two reasons why the New Zealand parliament voted, with only one dissenting voice, to create a legal framework for the sale of synthetic cannabinoids aka "legal highs".

This issue has also brought into focus the divide which between the overwhelmingly liberal political establishment and the more conservative social and moral values of much of the population.    Over the past four decades, parliamentarians have come to accept the social and economic doctrines of liberalism without question or qualification.  Most genuinely believe that a free market in synthetic cannabinoids will be a lesser evil than prohibition.

The liberals argue that where there is a demand for drugs (or any other commodity) there will always be a supply, and therefore attempts to control supply ("prohibition") are  doomed to fail.  That is nonsense.  An effective drug policy must work by controlling both the demand for and supply of drugs.  Prohibition of supply does work because it directly reduces the volume of drugs traded and increases the market price.  It also indirectly reduces demand by signifying social disapproval of drug use.

By promoting or condoning "legal" drug use for whatever reasons, the regime is actually creating the conditions for its own destruction.   Sectors of the New Zealand economy are already grinding to a halt as drug use becomes ubiquitous, and a range of public services, including health, education and social welfare are being burdened with enormous and totally unnecessary costs.  Colonial society may need its opiates, but cannot survive their social and economic impact.

It is obvious to even the most myopic observer that economic liberalism is associated with unfettered access to drugs in the marketplace.  It is less apparent that the guiding principles of social liberalism, the individual pursuit of happiness and self-empowerment,  also serve to validate personal drug use.  There is no disputing that elimination of demand should take precedence over control of supply.   Unfortunately liberalism, the prevailing ideology of imperial regimes in the their final phase of decline and collapse, encourages both the demand for and supply of drugs, and thus drugs cannot be effectively controlled so long as liberalism remains the dominant ideology of the state and society.

25 April 2014

Flattery from the throne

The political genius of the British has been to realise the dream of every despot in history: a Head of State who is immune to  criticism, not because he is loved or feared but because he maintains no political or moral principles and accepts no responsibility for the actions of the state which he represents.   But it does not end there. The sovereign's freedom from accountability has become the model for state and society.  In imitation of the monarch, a political and moral eunuch who exists only to play courtier to the politicians, his subjects have been robbed of, or willingly sacrificed, their morals, dignity, intelligence and spirit - in a word their humanity, all in  the cause of a tawdry colonial regime which is leading them into the abyss.

Flattery and bribery are the stock-in-trade of the politicians.  They bribe us with the money picked from our own pockets, and they flatter us with the fancy that we are an enterprising, innovative, good and great people.   The Duke of Cambridge is in no position to offer bribes but he does a good line in flattery and the sad reality is that  those who cast a benign eye upon this pair of vacuous British aristocrats lack either the wisdom to recognise flattery or the moral fibre to resist it.   When a subject flatters his king only two souls are put in peril; when a monarch flatters his subjects a whole nation may succumb to vain delusions.

19 April 2014

The evil of banality

The mass media, headed by the womens magazines, did its best to rark up enthusiasm for the recently ended "Royal visit" of the heir to the throne of New Zealand, William Duke of Cambridge.   For all that , the "European king movement" is a bizarre phenomenon whose appeal is mainly restricted to ethnic Britons, in particular the most recent immigrants.  So what harm could there be in it?   Those putting the question should recall the words of Hannah Arendt.  Political banality conceals a multitude of evils.  The evil of Duke William consists not so much in what he says or does - after all he says exactly what the politicians tell him to say, which is exactly what they believe the public wishes to hear - but in what he does not say or do.  He says nothing about the state's use of torture or complicity in the assassination of its own citizens by the security forces of foreign powers.  He is silent over the plight of the poor.  He turns a blnd eye to all the social evils of our times.  He is a moral eunuch, the perfect symbol of the moral anomy of a colonial society, but no fit person to head a civilised state.   A democratic republic might throw up a George Bush or Francois Holland  as easily as a Pandit Nehru or a Nelson Mandela, but it could do no worse than this fey shallow young member of the British aristocracy who, if John Key and David Cunnliffe were to have their way, would become King of New Zealand. It is a given that Bush and Holland can and will be criticised for their political iniquities.  In the final analysis they can and will be held to account.   Duke William and his grandmother, on the other hand, claim sovereign immunity from moral reproach.  They may receive it from the regime's mass media, but they not from this blog.

7 April 2014

William the Young Pretender

The "Royal visit" of the English Duke of Cambridge, heir to the throne of New Zealand, has been hailed by the mass media as a victory for  supporters of the British monarchy and a setback for republicans.  Whether or not that is the case is largely immaterial.   What matters is understanding the real nature and symbolism of the British monarchy in New Zealand, a reality which most republicans would rather not, and monarchists dare not, directly confront.

The "official" republican line is that New Zealand is defacto an independent nation which retains anomalous and anachronistic links to the British monarchy.   A simple matter therefore to set matters to rights by cutting those links and electing or appointing a New Zealander as New Zealand Head of State.

The reality is more complex and at the same time more logical than the "anomaly" theory.  Fundamentally, the balance of political forces in New Zealand remains as it has been since the late nineteenth century.   The developing economic conditions which favoured the rise of nationalist sentiment were sent into reverse by the Lange-Douglas Labour government of the nineteen-eighties.   Pakeha culture, as expressed in the writings of Frank Sargeson, Janet Frame, Maurice Gee and Barry Crump or the songs of Peter Cape had virtually disappeared by the end of the twentieth century.  The New Zealand economy became more dependent on foreign markets, foreign inputs and foreign capital, while the internal political forces became more closely aligned with the global alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.   Concurrently, there has been a marked increase in disparities of wealth and income within the country, and in consequence the colonial ruling class no longer sees any advantage in pushing the logic of nationalism.   Their wealth and their security depends on the one hand on the good graces of foreign powers, and on the other on keeping their own population docile and subservient to foreign interests.

Those who occupy the corridors of power in New Zealand no longer have reason to pursue a nationalist agenda, which presents a problem for the "official" republicans of the RMANZ who have placed their hopes for a republic in the hands of politicians who are sworn to uphold the monarchy.  That hope was not entirely unreasonable, because no one seriously believed that all those who swore allegiance to the British crown were genuine monarchists.  The problem, however, was that while a minority were committed  monarchists, the remainder were mere opportunists, and the political ground has now shifted to the point where for the ruling elite opportunism predicates the continuation of the monarchy and the colonial regime in general.  When push comes to shove parliamentarians will not resile from the monarchy because the alternatives, republicanism and nationalism, risk further challenges to the class and race based colonial society instituted by the New Zealand Company in the mid-nineteenth century and essentially preserved in varying form ever since.

The principal  institutions of state and capital are increasingly owned and managed by people from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and, to a lesser extent, the United States, the Netherlands and other foreign states.   There is a logic in appointing expatriates to the senior positions in both the public and private sectors, and, as has become apparent over the years, it has little to do with merit.   Foreign managers, and foreign rulers, are generally favoured by regimes which fear and distrust their own people.   The new foreign heads of government departments and major firms are the Janissaries of the colonial regime.  Their benefit to the colonial regime is that they have no inherent loyalty to the people of New Zealand.  They need not worry about the impact of commodity charges on the ability of their iwi to keep their mokopuna fed, clothed and warm.  They do not agonize over whether their lending policies will make it impossible for the men and women they went through school with to raise their own families in their own homes.   They will not be deterred by the prospect of dismissing from employment the older generation of workers who built up their industries and taught them all they know.    At best they will make a show of concern, but deep down they will not be constrained by sentiment or national loyalty.

Thus the British monarchy remains the vehicle of choice for propping up colonial rule in New Zealand.  The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will pretend that they know our islands and love our people and that each is in some mystical yet meaningful way "one of us".  They will encourage the illusion that we as a people are beloved by foreign powers, and by those from among our own people who are aligned with those foreign powers. They will serve the interests of the colonial regime without thought or compunction.  They will aptly symbolize its foreigness, its shallowness, and its fraudulence.  Like the three wise monkeys, or rather two crass scions of the British aristocracy, they will see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.  The parliamentarians will do their best to reinforce this pretence, and will match it with their own pretence of loyalty to the "royal couple".  It will be a sad and meaningless charade played out by a doomed regime.

Karl Marx remarked that history repeats itself, "the first as tragedy, then as farce" in which farce it is "possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part".  His observation relates to the events in France in 1851 when Louis Napoleon launched a coup against the French republic to restore imperial rule, but it aptly describes what is occurring in Aotearoa, not a sudden fascist coup as is the style of the French, but in the typical manner of New Zealand colonialism, a slow creeping retreat from national dignity and independence.

When the British first arrived in these islands in numbers, Maori were divided as to how to respond.   Some foresaw the loss of their mana with their lands, while others, particularly among the chiefs, determined to profit by selling hapu and iwi land to the foreigners.   So land was alienated, without right or mandate, in exchange for axes, blankets, muskets, printing presses, glass beads, rum, tobacco and Christian theology.  Eventually the dispossessed rallied behind a Maori king, Tawhiao, and other tribal leaders, and so began the movement against land sales which developed into the wars of resistance to British rule.

This history is being played out again, with the British immigrants themselves selling their lands in exchange for a gamut of late model cars, designer jeans, air conditioning units, mobile telephones, dvd players, pleasure boats, synthetic cannabis, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and overseas holidays - none of it as useful as an axe or a blanket, while the accompanying secular materialist ideology preached by a phalanx of modern missioners offers none of the saving grace or practical advantage of the Christian religion.

At the same time, a wave of more prosperous Asian settlers has alarmed the European population, causing them to vainly petition their government for an end to "asset sales".  Enter the "grotesque mediocrity", the Duke of Cambridge, along with Prime Minister John Key, leader of the opposition David Cunnliffe, the absurd European parody upon our past heros, Tawhiao, Wiremu Tamehana, Rewi Maniapoto, Hone Heke, Wiremu Kingi and Te Kooti Rikirangi.  The "European King movement" manifest in this "royal visit" is most surely and sadly a case of our own tragic history repeating itself as farce.

Bob McCroskie resigns as a state licensed marriage celebrant

Bob McCroskie, the leader of the "Family First" movement, has resigned as a state-licensed marriage celebrant, but will continue to conduct marriages without state endorsement.   McCroskie's move is a signal that while liberalism now controls the commanding heights of the mass media, the political system and the state a broad spectrum of the public will continue a stubborn resistance.   As the New Zealand Herald reported on 1 March " there are  ...hundreds fewer celebrants linked to churches and religious organisations – since a law creating marriage equality came into force in August last year.  The law change has prompted the resignation of ... Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, who has been a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage.  But it has also attracted new celebrants keen to preside over same-sex weddings."  The simple arithmetic might suggest a null nett effect, but as I wrote here in 2012 "Religious believers may be more inclined to separate themselves from a state which assumes a quasi-religious function yet in doing so contradicts the most fundamental positions of genuine religious traditions...When brought into conflict with the social order, religion becomes a revolutionary rather than a stabilizing force".   In  the course of their headlong "pursuit of happiness" liberals will not be willing to die in a ditch for the sake of their beliefs.  Their opponents are.  In the end, that commitment will make the difference.

27 February 2014

New Zealand today: The alchemists take charge

Radio New Zealand "Nine to Noon" show this morning featured an interview with New Zealand Customs Minister Maurice Williamson in which he suggested that "3D printing" could be used to produce anything from hand guns to human organs and - wait for it - "gold".   Gold from plastic, the alchemists dream, taken into the twenty-first century by digital technology.

A harmless delusion?  More than that.  Evidence that the monarchist regime is both prey to and purveyor of scientific, economic and social delusions which are inexorably drawing the nation to a catastrophe. That is not hyperbole.   A nation whose rulers are as profoundly ignorant and deluded as Maurice Williamson (the same Maurice Williamson who became an internet celebrity through his speech supporting homosexual "marriage") simply will not survive.

But are we underestimating the Honorable Mr Williamson and the New Zealand parliament?  If that august institution can turn the sacrament of marriage into a celebration of state-sponsored sodomy, could it not turn plastic into gold?  Is it only a matter of time before Maurice Williamson presents to parliament the  Materials Definition (Equality of Substances) Bill which decrees that plastic and gold are one and the same?

14 February 2014

An Auckland story

My parents started their married life in a garage-size bach which my father pre-fabricated where he had lived in Wellington, and then shipped by New Zealand Railways to a quarter-acre section of land at Mairangi Bay.  This was 1947, ten years before the Auckland Harbour Bridge was built, and a time when Mairangi Bay was a remote rural backwater without water reticulation, sewage, or sealed roads..   My father, who possessed a range of technical skills (photographer, radio serviceman, mechanic, carpenter, plumber and electrician) had it in mind that Auckland was the only place to be in New Zealand for an enterprising person with a technical bent.   The family settled in Mairangi Bay because they could afford to buy a section there, and Dad began work as an x-ray serviceman with Phillips Electrical Industries in the city, which entailed a long daily commute including a ferry trip from Devonport to the city. An Auckland story - click here to read more...

12 February 2014

Len Brown toughs it out.

Auckland City aspires or pretends to be a "world class city", and there is one respect in which it seems to be part of a global phenonomen.  In Egypt, Turkey, Ukraine and Thailand popular movements have sprung with the object of forcing supposedly incompetent, corrupt or divisive elected officials out of office.  In Auckland, a group of councillors, a vocal section of the public, social conservative pressure groups, and the nation's largest newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, have demanded that the recently re-elected  Mayor Len Brown should resign as a consequence of his extra-marital affair with the political "groupie" Bevan Chuang. Len Brown toughs it out - click here to read more

10 February 2014

The Syrian conflict and the threat to rule of law in New Zealand.

Under the "rule of law" the institutions of state are subject to the law and have minimal discretion in the exercise of their powers.    Under the "rule of power"  the law is perceived as a mere instrument of state power, and the state assigns itself wide discretionary powers.   In giving itself the right to withdraw the passports of New Zealand citizens on suspicion, and without recourse to legal process, thus restricting the freedom of movement of New Zealand citizens, the New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has signalled that the regime is moving from the "rule of law" to the "rule of power", where fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement  may be granted or withdrawn at the discretion of  institutions of state - in the present case, the security-intelligence service.
. The Syrian conflict and the threat to rule of law in New Zealand - click here to read more.

30 January 2014

Love, Sex and Marriage: Revisiting the amendment to the Marriage Act

Sex is at the heart of marriage.  If a marriage is not consummated - that is, if there is no sexual intercourse between husband and wife - the marriage may be annulled, which is to say that it is deemed to have never been a proper marriage.  The implication is that when the church says that marriage is "ordained by God" it is saying that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is also "ordained by God".  Therefore sexual intercourse is sanctified in marriage. Love, Sex and Marriage - click here to read more

21 September

Dear Phil... a letter to the administrator of the "redline" collective website   Click here to read .

31 August Revised 11 September

Early superannuation and "the right to choose"

When "fiscally neutral" measures are proposed or supported by Treasury they necessarily have an ideological or political purpose.  The purpose in the case of the proposal to allow uptake of superannuation at a reduced rate from the age of 60 years is to take a step away from the principal of universality and a step in the direction of "choice".

Ideologically, the proposal falls into the same category as Kiwi Saver (personal superannuation) and ACC (Accident Compensations Scheme) where the benefits paid are attributable to the choices that people have made in their lives - the choice whether to save or not to save, whether to have a high discretionary income or not and so on.  (Don't be surprised to find that income is a matter of personal choice.  The liberal doctrine of innate equality implies that regardless of ethnicity, gender or social class every individual is capable of achieving equivalent outcomes in their lives.  Therefore provided that social institutions such as the education system function as intended, personal incomes are the consequence of personal choices made earlier in life).Superannuation and the right to choose - click here to read more ...

An ugly discourse

The panel on Radio New Zealand "afternoons with Jim Mora" is an opportunity for various celebreties to proffer opinions on subjects about which (as they will sometimes frankly concede) they are wholly ignorant.   All that matters is the supposed weight which their contrived status lends to their opinions.  The facts are generally not material.

The format of the show generally requires one celebrity from the political left to be balanced by the presence of another from the right.   It is revealing however that as time goes by there is less and less disagreement between the various celebrity guests of the right and left, and on most issues they arrive at a happy consensus.  Two regulars, the Labour Party's Dr Brian Edwards and the National Party's Michelle Boag, both married to different spouses, have actually been conducting what must count as one of  the most public flirtations ever over the airwaves of Radio New Zealand National.   That, and the fact that most of the time on the show is taken up with social trivia and egregious displays of personal, social and intellectual vanity, provides an instructive commentary on the state of New Zealand politics.

A serious issue did come before the panel on Friday August 30, shortly after Dr Edwards had finished providing the audience with the details of his sunglasses, the shirt he was wearing, his suit, his wardrobe budget, his home in Herne Bay and his fondness for a latte.

This was the small matter of a New Zealand journalist, Wayne Hay, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the military dictatorship in Egypt.  What did the panel make of this event?  It was obvious they had very little idea what they should say, particularly after it was revealed that the military dictatorship had charged the journalist with being "in sympathy" with the deposed democratically elected civilian government.   Boag and Edwards neatly avoided this embarrassing problem by ignoring Hay's plight altogether and asking each other why journalists chose to go into positions of danger.   Did they do it for the adrenalin rush?  Was it like an addiction?

The discussion then segued to the subject of the Mumbai rapes with Boag asking why young Indian women would want to work until the late evening, and then travel home on public transport where they would be so at risk, and Edwards suggesting that it might have a lot to do with the perverse thrill of putting themselves in such risky situations.  Of course it didn't.   People like Boag and Edwards have the sense not to say such things.   But they will happily imply that New Zealand journalists arrested by military dictators who are friends to the western powers have perversely brought the problem upon themselves.  We are now seeing a re-run of the disgraceful way in which the Australian and New Zealand authorities attempted to cover up the murder of Australian and New Zealand journalists by the Indonesian military during the invasion of East Timor.

Just a few days earlier the Radio New Zealand Middle Eastern correspondent was telling her listeners about the "Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi" - a strange way of describing a democratically elected and exceedingly moderate Islamist government - and suggesting that the military dictatorship was at least no worse than the democratic government it had overthrown.   The inconvenient truth that 2000 innocent civilians had been massacred in the aftermath of the coup, as many more imprisoned, television stations and newspapers closed down, and foreign journalists arrested, received no mention.

The New Zealand state will not say or do anything to protect even its own people from the savage brutality of the western imperial system.   It speaks in favour of a military response to parallel atrocities in Syria, but only because it thinks (probably wrongly) that one side of the conflict there will support western "interests" in the region.  In that sense it doesn't matter who perpetrated the atrocity, so long as it provides a pretext for intervening against those who are judged most inimical to western interests.   It has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.  The New Zealand government has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not  give a hoot about the welfare of its own people, let alone the people of Syria, Egypt, or any other nation in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Radio New Zealand can be relied upon to keep the people of New Zealand fully informed about Dr Brian Edward's shirts and sunnies and Michelle Boag's social outings.   It will, so far as possible, continue to ignore the plight of Wayne Hay.  It will beat the drums for war against the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad while glossing over the crimes of the Egyptian regime of General al-Sisi.  Like the colonial regime which it serves, it will carry on being stupid, dishonest and amoral until the day when we enjoy something like our own "Arab spring".

29 August 2013

The secularisation of calling: how Barack Obama morphed into George Bush.

When Barack Obama succeeded George Bush to the Presidency of the United States western liberals celebrated the event as the dawning of a new age of politics. Those who had suffered the wrath of the United States - in particular the peoples of the Middle East - were more sceptical.   Few of the latter expected to see a fundamental change in the way that the United States exercised its power in the world, and to them it came as no surprise that Obama dramatically increased the number of assassinations being carried out by global drone strikes, maintained the Gauntanamo Bay prison camp, introduced massive systems of state surveillance of the citizenry, and began to brutally punish so-called "whistle blowers" who told the American public exactly what the President and Commander-in-Chief was doing in their name.

Some years ago I compared the corrupting influence of politics to what happens when you set a virgin to work in a brothel.   It is naive to imagine that the fresh innocence of the newcomer can prevail over the cynical corruption of the old hands.   This is the dilemma of democracy.  The job itself defines the way in which it will be conducted and there is no moral way to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, Prime Minister of New Zealand, or madam of a high-class brothel.

However, there is one critical subjective factor which I had overlooked, namely the way in which secularism profoundly changes the relationship of the individual to the world at large.  In the days when the word "vocation" literally implied a call from God, one's job in life, whether in the church, the state, or the civil society, was at the behest of God and required to be in accordance with his express will.  Today the purpose of a vocation is defined by the self-interest of the individual and the demands of the organisation or profession  within which the individual works.   The toxic confluence of self-interest and organisational-interest defines the modern secular vocation, whether in business, politics, professional sport, much of what passes for religion and virtually every other sphere of human life.  Until there is a return to religious values there will be no escape from the democratic dilemma.   A black President will be as ruthless as a white one. A female journalist will be as dishonest as her male counterparts.  A gay Prime Minister will be as devious as a straight one.    Nothing will change for the better until the people of the western nations revert to the life of faith.

David Shearer's dirty little secrets and John Key's own goal

I was not alone in being unimpressed by David Shearer's prospects after he acceded to the leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party, but I was one of the few who pointed out that his work with the United Nations actually brought into question his personal integrity and his suitability for the role of leader.  Most commentators assumed that Shearer had, in the now notorious formula of Labour Party propagandists, devoted his time overseas to saving lives, while John Key was busy amassing personal wealth.  The subsequent revelation that Shearer had large sums of undeclared cash stashed away in a secret US bank account took the legs off that particular claim.  Far from being the humanitarian hero of Labour Party propaganda, Shearer has been exposed as just one more devious New Zealand politician.

Shearer's final undoing was his pretence in Parliament that he had never discussed the GCSB bill with its author, National Party Prime Minister John Key.   Shearer had told Key that the meeting was to be treated as "off the record".  He therefore felt entitled to tell the New Zealand public that no such meeting had ever taken place.  Key, however, could not resist the temptation to betray the confidence by revealing the truth of the meeting to the House of Representatives, and thus Shearer's fate was sealed.

Few will have sympathy for Shearer.  While secretly colluding with the National Party government, he was deceiving the New Zealand public. His modus operandi was that ot the typical UN bureaucrat.  Engage in confidential negotiations with the local power-brokers and don't get hung up on matters of principle or morality.   That was particularly stupid of David Shearer, because John Key is no Afghan warlord who could be relied on to maintain the confidence of a UN bureaucrat.   He is a democratic politician who had a direct interest in undermining the credibility of his confidante.

John Key's revelation raises another troubling issue.   He has shown that  he is willing to breach the shabby "off the record" convention when it suits his political purposes.   Or even when it doesn't.   Key's political interests would have been better served by allowing David Shearer to remain leader of the opposition through to the next general election, but the political animal in the Prime Minister could not resist the temptation to discomfort an adversary.

An earlier National Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon, breached confidence by using a police report on former Labour Party Minister Colin Moyle for political advantage, and also used supposedly secret SIS data to discredit his political opponents.  Abuse of confidence is a constant temptation to politicians in positions of power, and John Key for one has demonstrated that he is unable to resist that tempation.   John Key and others at the highest levels of government will feel driven to use information on personal indiscretions or peccadillos gleaned through the enhanced powers of the GCSB  to either discredit or blackmail their political opponents.   New Zealand politicians, all of whom are human and fallible, will become the handpuppets of the spymasters once the GCSB has its all-encompassing system of surveillance in place.

9 July 2013 (updated 2013-07-28)

Afghanistan still in the news

The NZDF's own  figures, recently released by journalist David Fisher,  show that in 2012 nineteen New Zealand troops, out of 150 deployed in Afghanistan, were sent home on "psychological" grounds in a failed bid to restore discipline within the occupation force.  However the complete collapse of morale in the New Zealand forces in the latter months of 2012 cannot be forever concealed under the guise of "psychological repatriation".
Meanwhile, the army's attempt to discredit journalist Jon Stephenson has ended up in the New  Zealand courts ... Afghanistan still in the news - click here to read more...

Secular omniscience

Secularists who do not believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God tend to seek refuge in an omniscient and omnipotent state.  This was the case in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, and it is presently the case in Barack Obama's America, and John Key's New Zealand.  These people believe surveillance and control is necessary for the protection of the state, and the state in turn is necessary to defend the well-being of the people.

Having no belief in a beneficent and all-knowing God, the secularists believe that they must know everything that has happened or may yet happen in the world, and they consider it necessary to have absolute control over their own circumstances, to whatever ends. Having no belief in the hereafter, they are obsessed with the importance of preserving their lives and their fortunes in this world, even at the price of moral improbity.  In attempting the impossible, they find themselves obliged to resort to deceit, and then to force.

They are wrong, they are misguided, and they are doomed to fail.

Those who truly believe in God can accept their own limitations, and their own mortality.   They have no need to seek refuge in a putatively all-knowing, all-powerful state, because they have a truly all-knowing, all-powerful God.  The only imperative for the believers is to honour God while living in the world with honesty, courage and compassion for others, and in the end, they will be vindicated.

There are reasons why, and a process by which, the all-powerful all-knowing state must fail.  At the most fundamental level there is a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence.  If we know everything that is, was, and will be, then by definition we are powerless to alter that reality in any way.  If, on the other hand,  we could change anything in the world, then we could have no knowledge of what will be from the very next instant of time, because there would be no law of nature by which the creation is bound, and all would be subject to our own unpredictable and ever-changing will.   So omnipotence signifies the repeal of all natural laws, in the absence of which the patterns of the past would cease to have meaning, and would appear as mere coincidence .

There is a tenet of science, particularly applicable at the atomic level,  which says that every observation changes the thing that is observed, and hence that  nothing can be known absolutely.  The same is true of the market.   If the market knows that a commodity will  rise in price, then it acts to counter the rise, even to the extent of producing a glut which will cause the price to fall.  We act on the basis of knowledge, and we gain knowledge from our actions, but in acting we change that which we purported to know.  At the same time the desire to know inhibits our ability to act, because by entering into any particular set of material circumstances we change those circumstances, and we can never be absolutely certain of how different they may have been if we had not ourselves entered into the situation.

So among mortal beings the aspiration for omnipotence conflicts with the aspiration for omniscience.   We can be neither all-knowing nor all-powerful and we certainly cannot be both.

The surveillance state will change the material circumstances of our lives.   Vast resources are being poured into the project.  Hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands or surveillance staff will be employed.  Other sectors of society - health, education, productive enterprise - will be deprived of funding and capable personnel as the surveillance system grows ever-larger.  Those who would otherwise have been  supporters of the state will begin look at it with suspicion and resentment.  In other words, surveillance will itself give rise to the very disaffection which it was intended to detect and suppress.

The power given by the  webmaster's knowledge of the indiscretions and peccadillos of  political and religious leaders will inevitably be used for political ends, whether disclosed publicly or used privately to bring pressure to bear.  The effect upon the integrity of the political  system will be insidious and corrosive.

Meanwhile, the lower ranks of the secret watchers who in the end are still human beings, will experience the same frustration as anyone who has knowledge which must be concealed in order to protect its source.   Secrets inevitably end in leaks, and in the end, which may not be very long in coming, the surveillance society will suffer the same fate as any other overloaded leaking vessel.

7 July 2013

Spying legislation: Where does it come from and where will it end?

Nazi Germany and  the Soviet Union were notorious for spying upon their own citizens.   Both were militantly secular states.   Not  believing in  God, they sought to place the state in His place at the head of the social order.   In order to fulfil its self-assigned role the state was obliged to be omniscient, being cogniscant of every action, every word and every thought of every member of society. Only when possessed of such absolute knowledge, it was believed, could the state combat threats to the security of the nation and the welfare of the people.
Those who believe in God have no need for a state which can protect them against any conceivable trouble or threat, and thus no need for a state which knows everything about its citizens.  Taking refuge in their Creator, they have no undue fear of worldly afflictions.
The secular road, on the other hand leads first to social paranoia, and then to tyranny.  The person who sits at the centre of the web of surveillance, whether it is the Head of State, the Fuhrer, the party boss, or the head of the KGB, NKVD, Gestapo, FBI, GCSB or the SIS becomes the power behind the scenes.   Like the former Head of the American FBI, J Edgar Hoover, he is able to blackmail members of the government or the legislature over indiscretions or peccadillos which are hidden from public knowledge, but which become known to the intelligence services through electronic eavesdropping.   In this way the highest ranks of politics are the first to be corrupted, and then the system of fear and corruption extends down through the social layers as far as the lowliest citizen.
However, the harder the state tries to take the place of God, the more certain it is to fail.  It is not for the state to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and the absolute protector of its citizens.   Those are the attributes of God alone.  The state which tries to play God eventually collapses under its own weight.  The organisations of surveillance and control become unsustainably large.  So many are engaged in the business of spying and reporting on their fellow citizens that nothing gets done.  The productive society becomes hesitant, starved of resources and ultimately sclerotic
It is no coincidence that the New Zealand state is moving to establish comprehensive electronic surveillance of its citizens just weeks after having made itself the final arbiter of the marriage sacrament.  Having no God to revere, the state seeks to make itself  a God to be feared. It will end badly for the state, and for all those New Zealanders who subscribe to the false doctrine of secularism

5 July 2013

Morsi, Mora and McCormick

Gary McCormick and Jim Mora, who feature regularly on state broadcasters Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand National, are intelligent, good-humoured, compassionate, generally well-informed commentators on New Zealand and international events.   McCormick is an entertainer who toured the country with the late former Prime Minister David Lange, delighting left-wing audiences from Auckland to Otorohanga.  Jim Mora fronted the do-gooder television programme "Mucking In", acquiring in the process a public reputation for warmth and compassion.

A couple of months back McCormick and Mora were telling Radio New Zealand audiences that same-sex marriage was an essential human right, and would be a great thing for the country.  Neither seemed to think it might be desirable, let alone necessary, to have a contrary viewpoint represented on their programme.  Yesterday  on "Afternoons with Jim Mora" they dealt with a couple of themes which are only apparently unrelated.

One was the allegation made on the basis of an academic study, that the BBC had a "liberal bias".  Neither McCormick nor Mora saw any problem there.  To them the term "liberal bias" was oxymoronic.   In their view, if there is such a thing as a liberal bias, then it is entirely appropriate for the BBC, and by implication Radio New Zealand, to have it.

Social conservatives, who have been effectively shut out of public discourse in New Zealand, would not see it that way, and neither should any "intelligent, compassionate and well-informed" person.  The grave potential for harm presented by the liberal bias of the mass media was made more evident when Mora and McCormick moved on to the next issue: the military coup in Egypt against the one-year-old democratically elected government of Muhammed Morsi.  Western media and governments have refused to condemn the coup.  McCormick went further, suggesting that those who he called "our American friends" should never have allowed an Islamist government to be formed in Egypt in the first place, and that the coup was long overdue.

President Morsi and his government are now under military arrest and facing the threat of summary execution.  The Muslim Brotherhood's offices have been sacked and burned, scores of unarmed party workers shot and radio and television stations and newspapers which support the legitimate government have been closed down.  Mora and McCormick, the bold upholders of state-sanctioned sodomy, declare that all this is "not before time".  The liberal establishment in New Zealand, represented in the persons of Mora and McCormick, have decreed that the poor, the humble and the pious of Egyptian society should be sacrificed to the demands of a brutally corrupt military regime, and the greedy ambitions of a privileged elite.   However, this is not just about Egypt.  Western governments and the western media instigated, condone and support the military coup because they share its arrogance, its selfish ambition, and its contempt for the poor and afflicted of the world.   Their attitudes should, quite literally, put the fear of death into New Zealanders.  When push comes to shove, the "intelligent, good-humoured, compassionate, generally well-informed" liberals who claim the right to kill unborn children will not hesitate to kill anyone who they perceive as a threat to their hold on wealth and power.

Behind the benign persona of a Jim Mora, Gary McCormick, John Key or Barack Obama lurks the murderous reality of global secularism, which, when it has exhausted all its powers of wit and dissimilaton resorts to brute force.  The lesson in these events, and the global response, is that people everywhere must be armed to defend themselves against the military forces of the secular state.

3 July 2013

Tell me again: who won the cold war?

When I was growing up in New Zealand in the nineteen-fifties we were told a lot about the evils of communism.   In the Soviet states women were forced to  work in industry.  They were not able to stay home to raise their children, who were reared by childcare workers in institutions.  Working families were obliged to live in soul-less apartment blocks.  Family meals were taken in communal dining rooms.   Family farms had been taken over by impersonal corporations.   There were no family homes on quarter-acre sections, except for the ruling apparatchiks, who had their lifestyle blocks in the country and their holiday baches on the Black Sea.  The newspapers were filled with fatuous propaganda.  There was no opposition press or broadcaster to speak of.   School children were indoctrinated in the crass secular values of the Soviet system.   The few dissidents who protested or told the truth about what was happening were forced to flee the country, or remained holed up in Western embassies for decades.  Alleged counter-revolutionaries were secretly removed to prison camps in remote places where there was no rule of law and no right to open trial.  Armies were sent to suppress uprisings in the client states of eastern Europe.  The communist aim was to incorporate the entire human race into a global system based on the arcane economic theories of a nineteenth century philosopher who had no real understanding of human nature.   Religion was derided, and the institutions of religion were morally compromised. The political system was controlled by the 2% or so of the population who belonged to the Marxist political parties. The careers of dissidents mysteriously foundered.  The people lived lives of quiet desperation, often hungry, and always deprived.   The entire population, including the politicians themselves, were subjected to a system of surveillance that looked into every aspect of their private lives, their political opinions, and their social views, on the pretext of the threat posed by "counter-revolutionaries".

That grim picture is probably as true of New Zealand today as it was of the Soviet Union in the nineteen-fifties, and it begs the question of who really won the cold war.  All that we were taught to loath and fear about communism has become part of our life thanks to the very political parties and institutions which were most eloquent in telling us of our right to own a home or a farm, bring up a family, work for whom we pleased, be paid a decent wage, have the same opportunities as the most privileged in society, enjoy a variety of honest critical opinion in the news media, protect the family, respect the institutions of religion, and live under the rule of law.

The legislation currently before parliament which will give the state the absolute right to spy upon all its citizens is a move towards the final separation of the government from the people.  Taken in itself, it would be a worthless exercise, involving great cost and employing huge numbers of state officials to track and record the random thoughts of millions of New Zealanders, all to no apparent purpose.   However, there is and will be a purpose.   The New Zealand surveillance system works in concert with the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel.  In the United States the system is employed to target individuals for assassination.  Originally only non-US citizens were targetted.  Now US citizens abroad may also be assassinated on the orders of President Barack Obama.  Israel and the United Kingdom also use the surveillance system to support their own targetted killing programs.  New Zealand will be part of this system, and assuming that the New Zealand government continues to follow the logic of the United States and the United Kingdom, sooner or later the system will be used to carry out extra-judicial killing of New Zealand citizens at home or abroad.   In the interim, it will be used to instill fear in politicians, journalists, state servants, and the New Zealand public at large and to make the public compliant with the imperatives of the state.  But it will fail to achieve its ultimate purpose.  As hundreds, and then thousands of employees are drafted into the state security apparatus, there will be more low paid staff, more whose commitment to the preservation of state power falls short of being absolute, more leaks, more Julian Lasanges, more Bradley Mannings, and more Edward Snowdens.   Eventually the system will become too large, too unwieldy and too expensive, and it will collapse under its own weight, just as the Soviet Union collapsed from within.    When that happens John Key, or whoever succeeds him at the head of the New Zealand state will be left looking as silly as Enver Hoxha in Albania or Nicolai Ceaucescu in Romania.   Just a stupid little man in a colonial outpost who imagined he could found a durable regime on a system of universal surveillance.

1 June 2013

Maurice Williamson: In contempt of the truth

In his  celebrated speech  to Parliament at the third reading of the Marriage Act amendment bill, Minister outside of Cabinet Maurice Williamson stated "I also had a leader tell me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity ..".   It is now revealed that the "leader" in question was Williamson's party leader, the Prime Minister John Key, and that the comment was made in the course of a joking exchange between the two when Williamson apprised Key of his intention to speak in favour of the Amendment.    By a narrow definition Williamson's statement to parliament was therefore "true", but by substituting the indefinite article "a" for the possessive pronoun "my" Williamson knowingly deceived four million New Zealanders into thinking that he was referring to a leader from among the religious opponents to the bill.
From the outset the New Zealand news media duopoly of APN and Fairfax media knew the true story, but for reasons of their own chose not to tell the public.  Instead, to provide themselves with a defence against the day when the truth finally emerged, they tagged Williamson's address to parliament as a "humorous speech" which is media code for "Don't take any of this too seriously".
However millions of New Zealanders do believe what their politicians say in Parliament and take what they read in the newspapers at face value.   They are largely ignorant of the codes which journalists use to indicate to each other that a story is of doubtful veracity, or simply untrue.  Millions of ordinary New Zealanders have been deceived by a politician who is in contempt of the truth and betrayed by the journalists who gratuitously handed him a "Get out of jail free" card.

25 May 2013

Canary in the mine

Stephen Rainbow, the prominent New Zealand local government politician and apologist for homosexuality has suggested that homosexuals are the "canary in the mine" of creative culture, by which he means that when homosexuality can be openly practised the arts will flourish, and vice versa.  He may be correct in some degree.   There appears to be a correlation between homosexuality and the performing and creative arts: a number of great artists, among them Michelangelo, Tchaikowsky and Oscar Wilde, were reputed homosexuals.  However their works were created within the bounds of a social order which did not endorse  homosexual acts, and it is not necessarily the case that the culture is enriched by the glorification of homosexuality.  Now that homosexuality has become socially acceptable, one would be hard put to argue that Anglo-Saxon culture has reached a new zenith.   It has rap  in place of John Keats, talk-back radio in place of the Edmund Burke and Tom Payne, soap opera in place of William Shakespeare, and hiphop in place of Edward Elgar or Vaughan Willliams.   Whether that represents cultural progress or cultural decline is for the individual to judge.

The point that I would take from Rainbow is that homosexuality is not something that can be considered in isolation from all other social phenomena.   The same applies to prostitution.  There is for example, a clear connection between prostitution and drug abuse.  Drug addicts become prostitutes in order to finance their drug habits, and prostitutes take up the use of drugs in order to give a semblance of purpose to lives which have been rendered spiritually empty by the practice of  prostitution.   In New Zealand the campaign to legalise prostitution was led by homosexuals who then went on to lobby for and win state sanctification of homosexuality through the amendment to the Marriage Act.

There is therefore an empirical connection between homosexuality and prostitution. There is also an ideological connection.  Essentially the same arguments which were advanced to  support neo-liberal economic reform have been used to advocate homosexual law reform and  prostitution law reform.  There is a wider liberal agenda, to which virtually all political parties subscribe, though to  greater or lesser degree, and the social conservative critics of that agenda have been powerless to resist it, because, largely for reasons of material self-interest, they have been unwilling to challenge its fundamental ideological premises.

The overt social, legal and economic ramifications of homosexuality and the neo-liberal ideology in general are of interest and concern, but there are other less obvious and more insidious implications, particularly the prevalence of equivocation and dissimulation within liberal society.  Equivocation is maintaining that things of a quite different character are equivalent.   For example the claim that sodomy and sexual intercourse (between a man and a woman) amount to the same thing underlies the amendment to the Marriage Act, and is widely accepted within New Zealand society, yet it is at odds with simple truth.   The argument that a worker and a capitalist are essentially "the same" within the economic order is also contrary to the actual reality.   Equivocation thus becomes a form of deception.

The other side to equivocation is dissimulation - making things appear different to their true character - and dissimulation lies at the heart of the homosexual psyche.   The male homosexual may present himself as either a woman or a man.   In both persona he is deceiving himself and those about him.  Physically he is not, and cannot be, a woman.    Mentally, and spiritually he has the potential to be a man but as a homosexual he is not truly a man, because he does not relate to other men or to women in the normal way of a man.   In his life the homosexual acts the man, or acts the woman, while not properly being either.   The homosexual  is thus an intuitive thespian, capable of assuming many different identities and portraying himself as something different to his true character.

As homosexuality has advanced to the front ranks of the political establishment, equivocation and dissimulation have become so prevalent that they are the new norm of politics in this country.   Homosexuality has not been the cause - certainly not the sole cause - of the decline in political standards, but it has been associated with, and has had the effect of accelerating and aggravating the collapse of political integrity in New Zealand.   It has reached the point where the churches and their congregations now have to choose between liberalism and Christianity.   So does the socially conservative middle class which supports the  centre-right political parties.  My expectation is that the majority of Christians and social conservatives on the political right will capitulate to the liberal tide, because while it is counter to their spiritual beliefs, it remains consistent with their perceived material interests.   "Perceived" is the operative word, because in the longer term  - which may be  measured in years rather than decades - the social conservatives in the National Party and the churches will find that the historic accommodation with liberalism brings their world crashing down about them.

Bringing in the reinforcements

Aaron Gilmore's replacement on the National Party list is broadcaster Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian in a civil union who "has publicly admitted that she ticks all the boxes on National's representation scale".    If Hauiti is correct in saying that she ticks "all the boxes" it would appear that the National Party lacks a "box" for normal husbands and wives doing normal jobs and bringing up children in the normal way.  More importantly, it means that there is no box labelled "humility".   That comes as no surprise after the nation has been exposed to the arrogant and unseemly behaviour of Aaron Gilmore.     As the homosexual faction extends its influence within the National Party, we can expect "gay pride" will be manifest as homosexual vanity and arrogance of the kind expressed by Ms Hauiti, and the doctrine promoted by Stephen Rainbow - that homosexuals are not just the equals of heterosexuals, but are actually superior - will gain more traction.

Mopping up the opposition.

The parliamentarians who voted for the Marriage Amendment Bill were anxious to assure the public that it will have great beneficial consequences for homosexuals, and few or no adverse consequences for society at large.   Those assurances may be taken with a grain of salt.   The reality is that the law change will bring no lasting or profound benefits for the homosexual community, but it will seriously disrupt and undermine the existing socio-political system in this country.   The immediate consequence will be a sense of liberal hubris and homosexual triumphalism giving rise to renewed attacks on social conservatives,  and religious traditionalists.

The first shot in this new offensive has been fired by the Charities Commission, which has removed the charitable status of the FamilyFirst organisation on account of its opposition to the incorporation of homosexuality into the institution of marriage.   The Commission argued that FamilyFirst was a political organisation which used "propaganda" and "indoctrination" to advance its cause.     Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used  to promote a political cause or point of view" to indoctrinate is to "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically".    The Charities Commission thus implies that FamilyFirst has been biassed and misleading, and has encouraged uncritical thinking, yet the Commission has offered no evidence of bias, misleading information, or uncritical thinking to support this allegation.   As it happens, the Charities Commission will never be able to proffer evidence to support the claim of bias, misleading information, and lack of critical thinking, because in doing so it would be forced to reveal its own bias in favour of homosexuality and homosexual organisations which it continues to support and endorse as charitable organisations.  The Commission's claim of bias simply reduces to the simple fact that on the questions of homosexuality and marriage the Commission has a contrary view to FamilyFirst.

The Commission does, despite itself, go some way to revealing the real reason why it has deregistered FamilyFirst.   It says that the views promoted by FamilyFirst are "controversial.. in contemporary New Zealand society".   By "controversial views" the Commission means "minority views".  It is telling that the Commission waited until after the parliamentary vote on homosexual marriage before announcing the decision to deregister FamilyFirst.    There were two reasons for the three month delay in publishing the decision.  First was that the Commission wanted to avoid creating a backlash of sympathy for FamilyFirst which could have had an effect on the political process before the parliamentary "deliberations" were concluded.   Second, the Commission wanted to see how the numbers stacked up in parliament so that it could be sure that it was clearly on the "winning side" before taking a public stand against FamilyFirst.

The way that the issue of homosexual marriage has been approached by New Zealand  politicians, government departments, mass media, and quangos like the Charities Commission will concern those who truly believe in freedom of speech and opinion.    Those who wield power in society have come to a consensus on homosexual "marriage", and have determined to suppress and punish contrary points of view.   Early in this debate, I described this phenomenon as the spectre of liberal bigotry which will become more firmly entrenched within the political establishment as it advances into the brave new era of "gay marriage".   FamilyFirst will not be the last to feel the wrath of the liberal establishment.

For FamilyFirst however, punitive measures such as deregistration will not be a bad thing.  The organisation has been constrained by both its charitable inclinations and its charitable status.  It has chosen not to criticise homosexuals or politicians.   It has instead limited itself to advancing  positive arguments in favour of traditional marriage.  That has been an ineffective way of combatting the designs of militant homosexuals, morally ambivalent religious leaders, and corrupt politicians.   Now that FamilyFirst has been cast adrift by the state, it has the opportunity to realign itself with those in the community who feel deep anger at the arrogance and  selfishness of homosexual politicians.   Anger, of course, is not the way forward, but understanding the nature of that anger, and dealing with its cause, is a necessary step in the criticism of state-sponsored homosexuality.   FamilyFirst is now completely free to speak truth to power, and we can only trust that it will continue to do so.

"Softening up" for the next offensive

The Dominion Post 23 May 2013 carried the story that "An 18-year-old girl faces felony charges that she had sexual contact with her 14-year-old girlfriend leading gay rights advocates to say she is being unfairly singled out for a common high school romance because she is gay..".   The article, which is clearly sympathetic to the accused Kaitlyn Hunt, reports that "A 'Free Kate' Facebook page has generated more than 30,000 followers and an on-line petition.. has more than 100,000 signatures".

When homosexual marriage was first mooted in this country, some opponents were suggesting that group marriage would be the next social  innovation to be
promoted by homosexuals.  It is now apparent that will not be the case, and that instead media pressure will build around allowing homosexuals sexual access to boys and girls under the age of 14 years.  Much will be made of the arbitrary nature of the age of consent, and as in the homosexual marriage debate words such as "love" and "romance" will be used to deceive the New Zealand public into granting the desire of homosexuals for unfettered sexual contact with persons of all ages.

Over the past thirty years homosexual law reform in New Zealand has advanced by a classic Fabian strategy of successive supposedly "modest" and reasonable  demands.   First toleration, then decriminalisation, followed by sympathetic advocacy, civil union, and homosexual marriage, with the homosexuals insisting at each stage in the process that no further demands would be made.  The Dominion Post article is the start of the "softening up" process which will precede a new  demand for legalisation of homosexual acts between men and boys.   At this point the Dominion Post is only suggesting the legitimation of sexual acts between adult and juvenile females who are separated in age by just a few years, but once this chink in the law has been opened, it will necessarily be widened to include male homosexuals, and the permitted age distinctions will be progressively increased.   How many years before a slightly inebriated (or severely intoxicated as the case may be) Maurice Williamson is heard  declaiming in parliament "If a man loves a boy, and a boy loves a man, what harm can there be in that?"?.

The New Zealand public has been deceived into thinking that simple humanity requires them to allow the gratification of all homosexual desires.   They will learn, to their cost, that the gratification of those desires has no limit short of the total destruction of the social order.

  Click here to read achived items