Corrupt, race power-politics. Mandela or Havel? Leadership – versus the individual?
We should be feeling a sense of real loss that New Zealanders are leaving this country – and not just for financial reasons – although, given the mess that successive governments have made monopolising our directions, the gradual impoverishment of a once far more prosperous country is reason enough for those wanting to afford a house – wanting even to afford to support a family – to give up and go. What was once a far more democratic country has been turned into one where the leader of a political party, in cohorts with a small body of influential backers, now is able to inflict his or her wishes on the country. So much for the much vaunted concept of leadership. But what price leadership?
Two contrasting reports recently caught my eye. The first was the demand of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon that Syria’s President Assad stop killing his own people. What the Secretary-General specifically stated was that “ ‘the old rule ‘ of one-man rule and family dynasty in the Middle East is over“.
One-man rule? It is arguably now well now under way here, brought to an art form under Labour leader Helen Clark – none of her Cabinet apparently ever stood up to her – and basically carried on by our present Prime Minister, the all-controlling John Key.
We have of course to note the irony underpinning Ban Ki Moon’s over-late demand – an irony which will strike any informed observer noting how often the sheer incompetence, let alone corruption exhibited by the UN itself has resulted in the torture and killing of so many individuals – men, women, children, babies – in countries to which UN forces have been posted to keep the peace. The result has too often been what is still taking place – the propping up of murderous dictatorships, such as the one he now condemns in Syria.
In this respect, Spectator columnist Aidan Hartley’s extraordinarily shocking account of the damage done by no doubt well-intentioned, if remarkably ham-fisted interference in Africa – the dark continent containing the appalling barbarism of inter-clan, inter-tribal rivalries and the recent gung-ho, utterly unrealistic overseeing of genocidal areas by both UN and American forces – is a must-read, if almost unbearably so.
The Zanzibar Chest is one of the most compelling, deeply saddening, first-hand accounts of modern Africa today, its brutalised, vicious, utterly corrupt warlords (the worst of them feted at the White House in the West’s usual misguided attempt to cultivate supposedly well-disposed tyrants as the lesser of two evils – which they very rarely are) and the hellhole into which modern Somalia, for example has turned. This is a Somalia where some UN officials lied to hide the brutality of operations inevitably and regularly killing families of innocent civilians -and “where others toed a line of propaganda that was palpably absurd to absurd to reporters who went around and saw what was happening.” Incidents such as a Cobra helicopter opening up with its 20 mm cannon and machine guns and slaughtering 100 gunmen with Somali women and children placed in front of them – some mown down on open ground, others killed trying to take cover in buildings and behind walls – were commonplace – while US Rangers managed to arrest a group of United Nations officials, including whites and females. Little wonder that increasing numbers of Somalis had grievances because of relatives killed in crossfire.
Hartley’s account is not unsympathetic to the US – especially to the predicament of so many of its war-weary, nerve-shattered and terrified soldiers, ordinary individuals who had come to Somalia initially to help people. The inevitable result? “As the weeks drew on, the Americans grew so frustrated by failure that they resorted to acts of childish nastiness. They would hover in their Black Hawk helicopters just above the streets to cause an updraught that peeled off tin roofs and terrified people inside their homes. …US Cobras repeatedly used a mosque and a Muslim saint’s tomb on the beach south of the city for target practice, half demolishing it. Or they amused themselves by flying into the bush and scattering herds of camels”.
The point that Hartley makes well is that while the ordinary American soldier had come to Somalia initially to help people… “Within months they had become entangled in a crisis created partly by the stupidity of the generals, politicians, and UN bureaucrats”, with one particular Admiral in command apparently inhabiting a surrealistic view of what was happening, utterly at odds with its reality. “What eventually happened was that all the firepower of the huge UN army was needed to defend itself from the people it came to help… When they left, with them went any hopes that the West could help the Somalis put the nation back together….The United Nations had lost countless millions of dollars, the lives of 150 peacekeepers and thousands of Somalis. Yet it had achieved nothing.”
Hartley’s equally graphic description of the murderous enmity between rival ethnic groups and clans in Bosnia reflects his shock, this time at the starving Caucasian POWs filling the cattle barns, the Serbs, avid fan of porn movies trying to argue why they had to murder Muslims – and the fact that the Balkan killing involved Europeans, Croatians and Serbians, both Muslim and Christian with supposedly two millennia of civilisation behind them, yet only too happy to turn on and murder their neighbours. Given the present sheer folly of accommodating Sharia law in Britain; its present push to be recognised in Australia – and no doubt New Zealand; his description of a teenage boy caught stealing a woman’s scarf and being punished according to Sharia law by having his right hand and left foot slowly sawn off by a knife (a 10 minute process) we are well overdue to examine the inherent immorality of excessive tolerance…and of our own politically correct bureaucrats’ pretence of regarding all cultures as equal.
Indeed, one of the biggest threats facing civilisation worldwide – and one undermining our own democratic processes in this country – is what can be described as “ethnic democracy” or “race power” – i.e. the argument that the democratic process can be observed not according to its true value… in that all individuals should be treated equally, regardless of gender, colour, race or creed – but that ethnic minorities should have greater rights – a claim epitomised in the radicalised Tariana Turia’s specious accusation of “the tyranny of the majority.”
Granted that the people of a country as a whole can get issues wrong – it is then up to the same people to correct these. (Sweden did so twenty years later revoking its permissive, pro- cannabis legislation). However, the even greater tyranny is that of the majority by the minority. As Black American writer Thomas Sowell reminds us, the latter is a direct attack on the will of the public at large – successfully and manipulatively used by activist racial minorities to bully the majority through distortions of history, guilt trips, emotional blackmailing, and a never-ceasing demand for endless “compensation” – regardless of the costs to a country at large.
It is happening in New Zealand – it is in fact part of a world-wide, long in the planning, basically Marxist-inspired movement to bring down the West and its stabilising values – particularly those underpinned by Christianity.
At various points in history individuals have stepped forward – self-elected leaders who ultimately not only greatly damage the country in which they were born – as with a Hitler, Pol Pot, and a Mussolini. Others, media-canonised, will very possibly elicit a more moderate endorsement in the years ahead. How close to the truth of things was the film Invictus, for example, queries John Whitehall in a perceptive review, a film emotionally portraying “Nelson Mandela as a man of peace unembittered by his years of imprisonment and with strength of leadership based on a clarity of wisdom that was altogether saintly”. (News Weekly, April 17, 2010)
I recall a Nelson Mandela whose cause not even Amnesty International would support, because he refused to renounce violence as part of the revolution he was planning. On his release from imprisonment this saintly individual then founded the ANC, the Spear of the Nation, which had no compunction about blowing up supermarkets – even given the inevitable killing of women and children. I recall, too, that Mandela left his first wife, a nurse who worked to put him through a law degree, deserting his four children. His second soul mate, Winnie Mandela, was very much involved in the “official ANC policy to render the homelands ungovernable by violence” with the horrific brutal practice of “necklacing” with petrol-burning tyres moderate black South Africans who opposed them politically.
Mandela the saint has seemingly never tired of obligingly posing for photographers at Robben Island, the scene of his long imprisonment from which the South African government would have preferred to release him – had he been willing to renounce violence – which he refused to do. His fine words in recent years about putting hatred in one pocket – recognising its legitimacy, but putting it on one side – are less puzzling when one recalls, as reviewer Whitehall reminds us, is that “it is all too easily forgotten that many African National Congress identities were leaders in the South African Communist party whose Leninist doctrines insisted that their party …should alone exercise political leadership.” Far from this being the time of reconciliation that Mandela likes to evoke, “… in these years of Soviet -sponsored violence throughout South Africa, Samora Machel, the Mozambique leader of FRELIMO, whose widow subsequently married Mandela, declared that his philosophy was firmly-orientated toward Marxist-Leninist socialism, and presided over a reign of terror “characterised by executions”. Re-education camps and attempts at agricultural collectivisation resulted in hundreds of thousands of death from starvation. In East Timor, the left-wing underground resistance movement renamed itself FRETILIN after FRELIMO. Mandela himself was co-founder of the military wing of the South African Communist Party, led by Joe Slovo who, faced with the collapse of the Soviet Union regarded Marxist- Leninist theory as still applicable but merely misapplied. It was “now politically expedient for the party to be reconciled with its former enemies”.
In a thoughtful and balanced review, Whitehall points that for all his fine words which so entrance Western politicians and the media, the case for Mandela’s sainthood is at its weakest when judged against the common wisdom that a man can be judged by the friends he keeps. “Within months of his release from prison in 1990, Mandela visited Libya to receive the International Qadhafi Prize for Human Rights (described by one commentator as “equivalent to the Heinrich Himmler Prize for Religious Tolerance”). In 1997 he referred to Colonel Qadhafi as “my dear brother” and gave him South Africa’s highest award, the Order of Good Hope. Later Mandela was to call Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yassir Arafat “a comrade in arms” and to declare his indebtedness to the “Islamic revolution”. The Solidarity conference in 1995 between Cuba and South Africa held in Durban had Mandela declaring Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to be a man of the masses, although, as Whitehall points out, Cuba’s jails with their notorious rat-holes –ratoneras – would make South Africa’s Robben Island look like a resort.
Even the predominantly left-wing journalist Gwynne Dyer, reviewing the 100th anniversary of the African National Congress, notes that the way Mandela choose Mbeki as his successor to lead the ANC was “considerably less than democratic” … and that “the ANC doesn’t do democracy well”. In reality, Mbeki’s crazed denial of the cause of AIDS condemned many thousands to death, orphaning so many children, while the anti-white power shift in South Africa has seen a privileged black élite itself gaining considerable wealth and power and position – at the expense of the black majority. Its perceived corruption has seen the ANC vote steadily falling.
Do we have any great men – not simply those with what is cynically called the gift of the gab – that dangerous fluency which has moved mobs throughout history? Certainly the promotion of the cult of leadership has been hugely problematic. I recently asked a number of individuals if they could name one outstanding living New Zealander respected not for his her sporting prowess – and not a politician – but one widely recognised for integrity, intelligence, learning, wisdom, gravitas – and courage?
What does it say about us as a country that although one or two investigative writers were tentatively mentioned for their courage in tackling the issues of the day, no one could think of any living individual who fitted the description. The former Professor Blaicklock seemed to be the nearest. And yet I could immediately name at least half a dozen well-qualified Australians who would fit this description – and other brave individuals from our preceding generations. So what has happened to this country?
The second media report that caught my eye was the death of what was (even given the realities of the human condition and the frailties which we all share) – a truly great man. At the end 2011, the year of the so-called Arab Spring in which millions worldwide were rebelling against dictatorships, a truly great individual received a magnificent state funeral in Prague. On Christmas Eve, in a final act of great respect to Vaclav Havel, the man hailed as giving democracy to the Czech nation at the head of the world’s last great flowering of freedom – the entire Czech nation apparently came to a standstill. The country farewelled a 75 year old man, “the dissident playwright who inspired the anti-Communist revolutions of central Europe in 1989 and reunited his country with the West after four decades of Soviet rule”. Thousands of mourners, including presidents and prime ministers, reportedly packed into the ancient St Vitus Cathedra in Prague Castle for a Requiem Mass that began with a minute’s silence. “Outside on a wet and freezing day thousands more people packed into a castle courtyard and Hradcany Square, coming across the country with many wearing the Czech national colours on their lapels.”
Not just the Czech nation but the whole world loses with the passing of such a man – the individual of such integrity that he or she will risk losing freedom, facing possible imprisonment, torture or even death because of his or her belief in the importance of democracy – of the individual standing against the power of the state.
New Zealanders – those who have not already left because they say they cannot stand what has happened to this country – are now facing the fact that the power of the state is becoming even more tyrannical not only in our weighted, race-based politics but in that gradual diminishing of freedoms supposedly removed for our own good. The increasing attack upon individuals, such as banning this or that; the infamous anti-family, anti-smacking legislation – which our forbears would never have tolerated; the banning, under the pretence of the global warming rort (the so-called destructive effects of carbon dioxide) – of that age-old solace of the open fire; the call for people to be not “allowed” to smoke in the open air (where there is no danger posed to others of secondary smoking); the constant dreaming up of compliance demands on the professions and on the trades – government bureaucracies’ “requirements” which restrict individuals’ freedoms, insult their own judgment: all these and more, accumulatively, are making the practice of professions and trades in this country over-complicated, increasingly burdensome, and joyless.
Most dangerous of all are the attacks from without – with New Zealanders gradually losing control of their own land – considerably large areas of which have now passed into foreign ownership – and the cynical sale of highly productive state assets, in theory owned by New Zealanders themselves – for short term gain by cash-strapped governments which have so mismanaged the economy.
We have the inherent contradiction of the large power companies insisting that their continual price rises are justified – while at the same time independent analysis reveals that we have an oversupply of generation and power companies competing for customers, which should ensure electricity prices remaining stable over the next few years. How do we reconcile the fact that Powershop, e.g. a retailing subsidiary of state-owned Meridian, puts the oversupply at more than 1000 gigawatt hours per year for the next five years, with its chief executive Ari Sargent stating that this excess of supply is likely to mean downward pressure will remain on retail electricity prices for a number of years. Reportedly, several of New Zealand’s major electricity companies, including state-owned Genesis, have signalled that unless the outlook for electricity prices improves, they are unlikely to build new generators. Yet we can guarantee that the cost of electricity to New Zealand families will continue to inexorably, and inexcusably, rise.
It is now widely recognised that the housing market is so overpriced that the dream of owning one’s own house is beyond the reach of many New Zealand couples with families. How did this ever come about?
But one of the most crushing burdens on the economy is the continual, challengeable venal accommodation of ethnic demands by tribal-part Maori organisations promising in return a so-called Maori vote – that of a tribal collective – to the political party most prepared to pay up.
So-called “ethnic democracy” is no democracy at all. Yet where is the politician who will make a stand against the tribal corruption of falsified, highly inventive and elasticised claims which have caused so much damage to this country – not just in economic terms? And towards this so-called “ethnic democracy” is the direction in which our apparently corrupt major political parties are now heading, given the lack of politicians of integrity to stand up to be counted – and to warn against the dangers ahead.
It is almost incredible that the Top of the South iwi, at a time of such financial stringency for so many, for example, are going to be given a $400 million regional cash and asset injection from treaty settlements before the end of this financial year. It is no wonder that the tribes, whose massively lucrative windfalls never filter down to ordinary tribal members, are now being wooed by overseas interests approaching them for joint ventures. The Maori economy has already reached $37 billion – money largely grown from the raiding of taxpayer’s pockets to settle supposed grievances held by Maori against previous governments – grievances in relation to which today’s taxpayers have had no part to play and, arguably, should have no liability. New Zealanders’ sense of fair play and goodwill has taken a severe battering, knowing that much of the present tribal treasure chests’ wealth has not been earned by the iwi concerned – either by their own hard work or initiative – but largely taken from other New Zealanders because of a persistent hands-out mentality, underpinned by an ever-present sense of grievance – much of which has no actual basis in reality.
Questions need to be urgently asked Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, about the Top of the South settlement, which apparently concerns claims for land for which the Ngai Tahu were already previously compensated by the 1991 signing of the vote-buying treaty by Jim Bolger and Doug Graham, on the half of the previous National Government. This being the case, should not Ngai Tahu be requested to refund that part of their dubious settlement for land which, it is apparently now acknowledged, did not belong to them, and should not have been included in their “compensation package”.
While the Ngai Tahu iwi, an originally small group of largely European-descended iwi (for this reason they were known as the White Tribe) received $170 million in settlement assets, this highly controversial settlement from which public input was disregarded would very possibly never have taken place had it not been for the same highly experienced and determined Wellington lawyer Chris Finlayson, now playing a highly activist role as Minister of Treaty Negotiations, assisting them to push their claim against a largely ignorant, insufficiently prepared, and demonstrably incompetent Crown Ministry. In so many of the claim areas, the evidence was quite simply so much against Ngai Tahu, the historical facts so much at variance with what their highly manipulative spokespersons were claiming, that even the previous Maori Affairs Select Committee had rejected their claim. Many today would argue that the claims advanced in the Ngai Tahu settlement are well overdue to be re-examined by a Royal Commission of Enquiry.
Moreover, it can well be argued that the plight of an impoverished Maori underclass can be blamed at least partly on the soft thinking of a Treaty- settlement National government which quite deliberately excluded those Maori in most need – the unemployed or impoverished with no tribal affiliation.
It can also be very much blamed on what are now perceived as fat-cat corporate iwi with no intention whatever of passing on the benefits of the settlements to the poor and needy of their own tribes – a suggestion firmly rejected both by Ngai Tahu leader Tipene O’Regan and Tainui’s Robert Mahuta. Essentially, the money was to go towards tribal activism, with an eye to wresting even more gain from taxpayers at large. Tribal interests have lain not in helping their needy – or directing the settlement proceeds for the benefit of Maori at large – but in preference given to those committed to learn Maori (Walker or rather, reinvented Maori); to placing their own people in influential positions within the media; in handsomely financially rewarding tribal executives; in advancing family associates, and in facilitating law degrees for their young, with particular interest in the Treaty of Waitangi and its ongoing reinvention.
New Zealanders’ somewhat naive expectation that ultimately the demands of radical Maori activists would cease have not been met. As part of the whole contradictory “ethnic democracy” movement, corporate Maoridom has been working hard behind the scenes to establish in this country a new constitution elevating a supposedly cohesive but non-existent Maoridom to a power- sharing of New Zealand’s assets, economy, and institutions with the Crown. This audacious move is being advanced on the basis of a supposed partnership between some Maori chiefs and the Crown at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. That there never was any question of a partnership between Maori and the Crown is provably an illusionary concept which would have subsequently brought about any government tax-take being owed both to Maori and the Crown, as equal partners.
Increasingly, New Zealanders, looking at the now $37 billion Maori economy, largely given rather than earned, feel that this is what has in effect been happening – that they have been taxed unfairly without their consent, for claimed injustices which have had nothing at all to do with this present generation – a “compensation” which they initially regarded with generosity and a wish to see fair play, a generosity which has subsequently curdled.
Concerned New Zealanders are not unaware that the push for a new constitution is likely to hand over substantial power to the courts which are not accountable in the way that Parliament is supposed to be – although there is now very little evidence of this accountability – given the decline of genuine electorate representation in Parliament, and the corruption of democracy by today’s follow-the-leader replacement.
We should make no mistake about this: “race power” politics is behind the move to grant special privileges, concessions, rights – such as un-democratic representation on local government and community boards on the basis of being part-Maori. And this involves one of the biggest anomalies of all – that individuals by far non-Maori, in genetic terms, can now claim injustice – on the strength of 1/8th, 1/16th, ,1/32 or less of Maori inheritance – not only can – but are already doing so, to benefit themselves – at the expense of others.
It is a rort – and should be recognised as such. Like many others, I can think of top performing part-Maori medical specialists and other doctors, lawyers, judges and bankers, dentists, wealthy business owners – by no means needy New Zealanders from all walks of life, who can trace some smidgen or other of Maori ancestry – no matter how tenuous – which would give them or their children the right to privileged university placings, assisted scholarships, various kinds of undemocratic preference – at the expense, inevitably – of everybody else.
Until the mid-70s the legal requirement for any individuals claiming to be Maori was to be at least 50% genetically Maori. For example, The Native Land Act 1909 defined a Maori as “A person belonging to the Aboriginal race of New Zealand and includes a half caste and a person immediately in blood between half caste and a person of pure descent from the race.” (The more generous legal requirement for the 1990s ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) was that the claimants had to be at least one quarter Indian, or Inuit. Less than that was acknowledged to be predominantly a disqualification for claiming largely ethnic inheritance).
However, we have now carried the definition of Maori to absurd lengths – and this was brought about quite calculatedly by activist Maori pressure for economic advantage. For example, the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, bringing to fruition the neo-Marxist activism of the 60s, where young Maori radicals were taken and trained overseas, and now defined Maori as “A person of the Maori race of New Zealand and includes any descendent of such a person.”
Given that there are now no full-blooded Maori in New Zealand, this whole question of ongoing, and to New Zealanders at large, ruinously costly “compensation” has become increasingly problematic – particularly given the number of now quite openly spurious claims being endorsed by Parliament which, under this recent National Government (and once again we see the hand of Chris Finlayson, Minister of Treaty Negotiations) has not even required the burden of proof before paying out hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of what are essentially challengeable assertions.
What it is costing productive New Zealand is brought home to us by the fact that Finance Minister Bill English’s office recently revealed that the only 160,000 households earning more than 150,000 a year are subsidising the rest of the country. Those earning less than 50,000 are receiving more in benefits than the tax they pay by almost $3 billion. Columnist Jon Morgan reports Christchurch-based accountant Pita Alexander’s conclusion, in an over-all view of our directions, that “90% of New Zealand MPs in his lifetime (he is in his 70s) deserve very little credit for anything”. (Most of us would regard even his 10% exclusion as over-generous).
There is no doubt that our now race-based politics, as well as our self- serving politicians are costing the country. We are well overdue to insist on a realistic legal definition of Maori. We are also well overdue to insist that those who are not predominantly genetically Maori should not be regarded as such, for statistical purposes and economic and political advantage over all others.
New Zealanders only way forward to recover so much of what has been lost is to insist that this country proceed on the basis of the age-old, unbettered principle of equal rights for all – regardless of colour, gender, race, or creed – and not superior rights – the so-called “ethnic democracy” – i.e. not democracy at all – more accurately called race-power politics.
But where in our now leader-dominated political parties, with our Members of Parliament no longer representing us – but intent on maintaining their own hierarchy, privileges – and maximising their own financial returns on the basis of the positions they hold – where can we find individuals like Vaclav Havel to stand up against this growing tyranny?
Given that history has brought home to us the highly problematic fact of the notion of leadership of – we are well overdue to recognise that individual initiative is, after all, the most important thing.
Where then are the individuals to be found – what are essentially our own great and good – prepared to stand one by one, side-by-side, right across the country?
Such is a real democracy…
The only realistic way of going forward to achieve this is through our movement –the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand. Check out How It Works on our website www.100days.co.nz . And if you have already joined us – Thank you – and do tell others…