Open Letter to Winston – Jacinda is way out of line

Dear Winston –Please don’t shift your ground on a promise you made – and yes – it wasn’t an If…or a Maybe. It was an unequivocal undertaking. So many have trusted you. That’s important. So, as you know, is your integrity. So is public perception.  To now reportedly hint that it would be fair enough to back off your pledge to abolish the divisive Maori seats in Parliament,  because the Maori Party failed to win any, this recent election, is imply not good enough. You will be well aware that as long as the provision for the Maori seats exist, in law, they can be contested again, in a coming election.

This is an open letter to tell you how dismayed, even betrayed, so many thousands of New Zealanders will now feel if you shift your stance on your pledge to call for a referendum on at last removing these anachronistic seats in parliament. You know they are racist.  You gave your pledge as a bottom line. And as far as so many of us are  concerned, you were  actually promising what was long recommended, so that the country can at last say – We are one – or at least strive for equality for all, under the law.

Remember the democratic principle so very conveniently sidelined in recent years – as the white-anting of our New Zealand society has undermined our foundations?  This was the founding concept of modern democracy – pledging fundamental and equal rights to all people in law, regardless of colour, race, gender, or creed.  Any whittling away at this fundamental principle of a genuine democracy diminishes us all.

Recent vote-buying governments, persuaded by now very wealthy and powerful iwi, have backed away from keeping their word – as National did, to its shame. This breaking of a social contract, a pledge given to voters by a party leader, was not only regarded as an act of betrayal. It also lessened even further the respect in which politicians would like to think they are held. Equally damagingly, it takes away from so many the hope that New Zealanders try to hold fast to – of a country in which they once more count, a stable, undivided, peaceful society, respecting the values of those who fought to make this a better country.

 But we’re going backwards – not forwards. And retention of the outdated Maori seats, giving special advantages to those with even the very smallest part-Maori, genetic inheritance (Why?) is contributing to a growing push now towards promoting anything touching on Maori as inherently superior. Again – Why? The whitewashing of the realities of pre-European settlement country, of never-ending internecine tribal wars, of the barbarities of a ruling priestly and warrior class inflicting the cruelties of slavery, barbaric practises and the horrors of cannibalism, are no reason for regarding it as desirable that throughout the country, local government and statutory boards should be forced to kowtow to the supposedly superior insights provided by any individuals with even a sixteenth or  a thirty-second genetic inheritance from  the past.

You will be aware that the Auckland Council is seeking a legislative change to make an elected Maori councillor role compulsory. Incredible!  Even though Auckland councillors themselves have voted 10 to five against introducing a Maori ward. As one commentator has noted, the council’s attitude now equates to (with deeply Orwellian logic…)We can’t trust the majority of the public to vote for what we want – even though we’ve relied on them voting for us – so we therefore will subvert the democratic process…”

All around the country, the opposition to forcing local bodies and government liaison committees to grant special voting rights to unelected individuals on the basis of a part-Maori inheritance has been overwhelmingly rejected, as you know. Yet not for a moment has this past National government taken any notice of the wishes of the majority.

New Zealanders are not fools, and we now have a total contradiction of democratic values and freedoms by an overbearing government, pressured by the now immensely wealthy iwi (the Maori economy now is estimated at about $50 billion dollars. Most of this has been successfully withheld by the rich tribal corporations, with their tax-free status – (Why?)  – from an underclass of their own people in desperate need.

Removing the Maori seats in Parliament is a hugely important move – the very first step towards dismantling the new apartheid we have created – by which some are now more equal than others. And because of this and the vested interest these extraordinarily wealthy iwi have in promoting their own position and influence, and obtaining even more economic advantage for themselves, you will be under considerable pressure to walk away from that promise you gave the public.

You will also be under pressure because the present Labour Leader, Jacinda Ardern, is trying to manipulate you into giving in to her ill-thought determination to ignore the wishes of the country and have her own way  – with regard to preserving the seats.

Her attitude is inexcusable, given that able Members of Parliament of part- Maori descent are now to be found across the spectrum of political parties in Parliament. Labour itself has part-Maori members, National others. There are reportedly now 29 part-Maori MPs in total – strong proof that there is no discrimination against individuals of Maori descent winning  a place  in the House. 

Your own credentials as leader of New Zealand First and of part-Maori descent, long recognising the damage being inflicted on the country by the retention of Maori-only seats, are considerably superior to those of Miss Ardern. She is compromising herself intellectually by refusing to acknowledge that, given a part Maori genetic inheritance is no barrier to becoming a member of Parliament, there is no possible excuse for maintaining the Maori seats. This is doubly so, given that, to date the interests of this racist party have been to wrest even more provisions from the majority of New Zealanders.

Jacinda needs to drop her born-to-rule assumption, and acknowledge that it is not up to her to decide whether or not the Maori seats should be abolished. We’ve had to put up this sort of high-handed attitude from our MPs for too long. The decision is one for the people of New Zealand – not a handful of her Labour Party insiders. It’s time for her to take that on board, not arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that the decision does not belong to a politically-motivated group completely out of touch with most New Zealanders’ objections to this racist provision.

I sincerely hope you yourself have been misreported. Because if you renege on your commitment to put the abolishing of the Maori seats to the public at large in a binding referendum, then so many New Zealanders who have put their trust in you on this issue will loathe you. They are fed up with politicians promising one thing and doing another. Moreover, your stated intention to do this will certainly have meant a rise in the number of voters looking to your party.

The feeling of anger at the maintaining of special privileges, special scholarships, special treatment given in nearly all our institutions to those with even a claimed smidgen of Maori genetic inheritance, is now widespread  – with good reason.

What you were reported as saying in the National Business Review at the time will have given heart to so many. I quote:  “The fact is, Maori don’t need to be told they are not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped, that somehow they should be pigeon-holed,” Mr Peters said.

New Zealanders have taken this to mean that this referendum will be put to the whole country. To confine it to Maori alone – as you then seemed to subsequently be considering, would hardly be logical. It would be like asking the fox to vote for the abolition of hens.

Furthermore, any move to confine the referendum to those claiming to be Maori could be challenged on legal grounds.

There is no longer any definition of Maori. The former logical definition was done away with in the mid-70s by those with their eyes to the main chance – i.e. their ability to  include others  in their number who were, and are, predominantly European (or of other descent) as “Maori”  – in order to show a greater numerical strength  – aware of the political pressure they could then wield.

But it is obviously legally possible to challenge the definition of “Maori” – when those with less than half a Maori genetic inheritance claim to be basically Maori although they obviously aren’t – by any scientific assessment.

Canadian Judge Thomas R Berger travelled around Alaska in the late 1980s to interview the people, Indians, and Inuit, who lived in the villages. When the ANCSA (Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act) was reviewed, the cut-off point for declaring oneself of aboriginal (native) descent was a generous one. One could still be considered aboriginal (Inuit or Indian) if one had a quarter (25%) genetic inheritance. Below this, one was regarded as being predominantly not aboriginal, and therefore unable to claim this.  So why are we allowing this farcical situation in New Zealand?

Many of the most vociferous claimants to disadvantage – (or, contrariwise, of superior insight) because of a purported Maori genetic inheritance – are in fact not even one-quarter Maori. Yet we have allowed them to queue up for special benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer – which is basically a rort. Moreover, the Anglican Church has been silly enough – as have others -to say that one is Maori – and is entitled to be regarded as Maori, simply- if one “feels Maori”.

This is a nonsense. If I were deranged I could possibly regard myself as an Arab – or an Australian aborigine…or even an animal of some sort. But any “feeling” I might have would be at odds with the reality that I’m none of these. .

If you change your mind, and kowtow to the present Labour leader’s claim that she will not allow the discussion in relation to your undertaking to put the future of the Maori seats to the public at large to decide (and the country had no doubt that you meant a referendum binding on all) to be part of any discussion concerning a possible coalition, then she is not only being very foolish – but you would be honour bound to reject her terms. Nor should any referendum be confined confined to Maori only. Such a proposal would face formidable legal challenges, given that there is no longer any actual definition of Maori – all of whom are now part-Maori only.

Furthermore – it is also not accurate to say that such a referendum would be relevant only to part-Maori.  All other New Zealanders have been required to contribute financially  to supporting the Maori seats – and so, too,  the Maori Party…a prime example of the cost to the country at large of this ongoing movement to give one sector of the community special rights – at the expense of the majority.

I’m sure you personally are well aware that prioritising identity politics has been destructive and divisive to New Zealand. The only ones to benefit from it are those well and truly milking the system – at the expense of us all.

I’m afraid, Winston, that if you do not want your integrity to be doubted by those who have long supported you – because of your much-respected commitment to a unified country, it will not do for you for you to renege upon, or equivocate about, your original promise to mount a binding referendum – to be put to all the country.

Many New Zealanders have consistently supported your stated aims and defended you against your detractors. They will not want to continue to do so, if you break your word. And you would deservedly lose the respect in which many hold you for your long stand against the inherent corruption of race-based politics. We must trust you on this.

Kind regards

Amy

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

Ah, the poor dear found it “hurtful”. But what does “rogue” mean?

The feeling of apparent entitlement Metiria Turei seemingly had when cheating the system to obtain extra advantages as a solo parent is not new. But it seems to have reached epidemic proportions. What individuals claim they are “entitled to” rarely if ever now comes with the recognition that their claim must cost others. Society willingly consents to this  when the common good is involved, as, for example, with access for all to quality heath care – an access now demonstrably lessened with this National Party government’s unrealistic and damaging squeeze on hospital funding and services.  But when that feeling of entitlement involves cheating, for self-advantage, most people take a dim view.

And so with all those illegal activities – or, worse, crimes individuals commit across all levels of society. Take theft or robbery – among the most contemptible of all crimes – whether  the all too prevalent “nicking”…or the more ambitious forms of theft committed by trusted civil servants and  financial high fliers …and now by  drug dependants and too many of our young. Is this a surprise, when too many  children  no longer have much needed standards of right and wrong taught them as essential for society’s stability, even survival?

Isn’t it time to question why subjects that required supplying rigorous thinking aids to all children were gradually removed from schools – putting so many disadvantaged children in particular at even greater risk? And how very convenient that the constant sniggering, or sniping, at those Christian values which so long underpinned the West, occurred at the same time. Coincidence or agenda? The Ministry of Education’s neo-Marxist infiltrators, long calling the shots, hold the answers here. 

No matter how contemptible the crime, the moral responsibility for owning up to a mean or violent deed too often now elicits the self-excusing “I made a mistake” – a clichéd understatement,  and a lack of acknowledgment of a moral culpability. 

In an extraordinary and ill-judged example of group-think, the Green Party has shot itself in the foot by treating one of its probably most financially privileged MPs, Metiria Turei, as some sort of heroine. Contrariwise, it has treated two of its most respected MPs, who are apparently not willing to abandon conscience and put a good face on her cheating the system, as “rogue” MPs.

This is Alice in Wonderland territory, where words mean only what they are chosen to mean – neither more nor less. This may be highly convenient for the self-deceiving Greens and any media cohorts – but parts company with reality – and public perception. A dictionary definition of “rogue” is “dishonest or unprincipled…”or “…a large animal living apart from the herd, having …destructive tendencies.”  For media to condemn as “rogue” the two honest individuals who acted according to conscience “seems extraordinarily ironic. Shouldn’t they be retargeting their thinking?

The country knows the story. The co-leader of the Green Party, until her now change of mind,  was  reported as saying she had  no intention of stepping down, even if it costs her party (much-needed) votes. Presumably her sense of self-entitlement, twinned with her sense of self-esteem, was more important to her than how her colleagues will now now fare in the coming election. Because, twist the facts as one may, many New Zealanders undoubtedly feel a lack of respect for someone who cheated the system to gain more financial advantage – particularly so if she also had family help.  Worse, she has apparently been encouraging others to do the same. At the Green Party’s annual conference, Ms Turei unveiled a totally unrealistic, socially damaging major new policy to overhaul the welfare system. Its aim? Reportedly, to remove all sanctions to beneficiaries if they don’t meet obligations when receiving a benefit.

Well, well, well…This extraordinary encouragement to seemingly cheat the system (regardless of the fact that our welfare benefits have undergone a number of studies showing their damaging consequences) seems to be saying – Do as I did.

What many regard as encouraging dishonest behaviour has become enormously divisive – with good reason – regardless of the fact that the Green Party appeared to be living in La la Land- with a kind of happy-ever-after perception that everything was just fine. However, it isn’t. Those who remained poor but honest, with little or no family help, have a right to feel that Turei threw honesty to the wind – and to challenge her lack of any past attempt to pay back what she contrived for herself through fiddling the system. After all, her subsequent work as a lawyer commanding a very healthy salary of an estimated $150,000, presumably left her plenty of leeway to start paying back what she could, as soon as possible – had she sincerely regretted her actions. It seems that in fact she has misjudged the situation – apparently attempting to elicit sympathy at the conference for her own previous situation – to justify removing all sanctions against others who may be encouraged to follow her example.  

Metiria Turei now runs the risk of being viewed by many New Zealanders as incomprehensibly egoistic. And it is too late for the Greens to fall into damage control mode, because they made quite the wrong decision to apparently regard the two individuals who made a principled stand as beyond the pale.

A topsy-turvy land indeed, and Labour is not likely to benefit for long as its new inexperienced leader refrains from making any comment on its virtual partner-party. Jacinta Ardern may now be the media’s new young darling, but her unprofessional look,  with that now all-too fashionable unkempt hair style, is off-putting to those who would prefer any future leader to look capable and mature – not simply good at soundbites or speeches.

This country doesn’t need any more media personalities. It needs those who have had the knowledge and sense of history which enables an individual to read the writing on the wall – to articulate what is happening to us as a people, and to target how we can reclaim our country.

Politicians are no more saints than the rest of us. But we expect them to have principles. And their proven intent to fight for this country has become more necessary than ever.  But it’s not happening.

Nor is Metiria Turei the only politician to feel especially entitled. To their shame, our politicians collectively have long contrived special, unacceptable perks and privileges from us…superannuation access greater than what is available to the public, required to keep paying for this – the inexcusable largesse of taxpayer-provided, ongoing airfares for these often very wealthy individuals and their partners, post-parliament. But why? The rationale provided for such self-serving “entitlements” is more than weak.

The world-wide mood is one of being fed up with the political classes. And the nearest we have in this country to a perk-buster is gaining growing support. In spite of NZFirst’s apparently inability to mount effective spokespersons from its List, and its poor internal party organisation, the country is more and more turning to Winston Peters. This highly experiences politician has long warned about the very real threats, both internal and external, facing New Zealand.  

Peter is now seen as the nearest we have to a genuine and knowledgeable statesman among a line-up of yes-sir,  rigidly party-politicians , apparently pledged to not stiffen their spines when dealing with past reruns of damaging, autocratic  leadership, such as the wide-eyed and wily Helen Clark, and the glib John Key.  

NZFirst has promised for the future a genuine binding referendum on issues where it does not have a mandate from the public for not previously stated policy directions.

 Not enough yet  but we are on the way to where we New Zealanders  – not mere politicians  – will be making, as we ourselves should – the important decisions that affect us all. We are on the way to the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand. 

© Amy Brooke

**http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17341/amy-brooke-downplaying-the-very-real-threats-to-nz/?mc_cid=e632cab3ff&mc_eid=2eadea2444

**And for the important stories which are so relevant in election year,  check out

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

 

Tired of our media’s witch-hunts, and their political favouritism?

Election year – and we’re ill-served by partisan media – like Fairfax. Given their love affair with the National Party, when do they ever comment, for example, on the fact that good old Bill English, following on from good old John Key, and so often the mouthpiece for his boss when it came to making unpopular statements, admitted that “the government may beef up the Overseas Investment Office to make it quicker for foreigners to get permission to buy New Zealand assets.” ** As for their hate affair with Donald Trump, when do we ever get analysis as good as this? https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/james-comeys-latest-statement-is-an-indictment-of-comey-not-trump/

and https://spectator.org/prosecute-comey/

Not from the talking heads of our second-rate media,  who for weeks now have been obsessed with peddling whatever anti-Trump venom they can gleefully get hold of. And their cartoonists defy convention by their sheer nastiness…rather than insightfulness.

When our journalist deify themselves as Seekers after Truth and Justice, it’s always rather amusing. As far back as November 2016, senior media individuals, editors, deputy editors, etc. of our dailies, particularly of Fairfax, signed a full-page advertisement in national newspapers. They were vigorously arguing that the Commerce Commission’s decision to refuse a merger of Fairfax media and NZME (New Zealand Media and Entertainment…although they didn’t bother to explain this) was wrong. Congratulating themselves on having 30 editors signing their names to this open letter, they castigated the Commerce Commission for not sticking to “the economic analysis” but straying “into intangibles such as the quality of journalism, and unquantified risks to editorial independence.” Hmm.

In appealing to the general public they would have been wiser not to boast too much about the quality of journalism in this country, pretty awful at best in daily newspapers (and this is even when ignoring gratuitous mistakes in grammar and syntax).  No suggestion of balance is evident in relation to issues such as the near hysteria over supposed man-made global warming (even though well-established science journals are now back-peddling on this extraordinary, politicised phenomenon, and some well-regarded scientists are saying we are on the brink of another mini-ice-age. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down

However, editorial bias – and gullibility – has become so flagrantly obvious, with these dissenting voices suppressed in our mainstream media.  Moreover, lack of any objectivity in most editorials (unsigned, of course, although this luxury is not given to correspondents) is matched by the widespread knowledge that many letters to the editor are now suppressed simply because they annoy the letters editor, who doesn’t agree…so doesn’t want them to see the light of day. So much for fair debate.

It’s not just the extraordinary venom of the anti-Trump phenomenon fanned by the virulent rhetoric of the Left, and financially supported by Clinton supporters. Shockingly the latter are attempting to overthrow a legitimate change of Government in the USA – the verdict of the American people at election time – by unconstitutional means – by the misinterpretation and fabrication of facts – and even by the not so covert encouragement of violence.

For weeks now my own local Fairfax daily has published quite appallingly slanted  editorials buying into every anti-Trump denouément  – without making any attempt to provide their  dismantling – readily available by first-class investigative journalists abroad – but not, of course, any in this country. The Washington Post  has long been infamous for its unacceptable bias and its peddling of leaked and quite wrong information, no doubt on the premise that if enough lies are told they’ll eventually achieve what the Post so badly wants – the indictment of a president, regardless of the fact that that thoroughly dreadful pair, the Clintons (read Nobody Left to Lie To, by Christopher Hitchens, himself a Democrat who simply couldn’t defend the  widespread corruption that surrounded Bill Clinton’s presidency – let along Hillary’s lies).

Top overseas commentators now argue with good reason that if truth and justice prevailed, Hillary Clinton would now be behind bars. She was an inferior candidate who deservedly lost an election – but the darling of The Beautiful People, the Hollywood actors – whoops – Stars! –  media sycophants  and pop music celebrities never slow to advance their superior opinions. Every socially and morally destabilising issue pushed by the bullies of the Left has found a listening in Hillary (as with Obama) – whether supporting the horror of “partial birth” abortions (removing the brain from a baby emerging into the world”… or whether the new fashion for identifying oneself as transgender on the basis of arguing that identity choice beats natural biology. In the name of “tolerance”, the bully boys and girls on the Left demand that those in conscience opposing these and other new and destructive social practices must be punished, silenced, or hauled before the courts for “discrimination”.

In its obsession with Trump, no doubt  making mistakes along the way, but apparently determined in principle to respect his reform programme of returning respect for the forgotten people of America, blue collar workers and families, our media let us down. Those targeted by the” liberal Left” even include Christians,  now demonised by the media (though it has been Christian values which  have underpinned and stabilized our democracy).  Their extreme partisanship shown towards our former PM – the glib and slippery John Key, for example – contrasts with the bile heaped upon New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, which has been quite blatant. Yet Peters speaks more than any other politician for backbone New Zealanders.

Returning to the signed letter to the Commerce Commission, we can only shake our heads when we read, “ensuring that a diversity of views, perspectives, experiences and issues are covered is an editor’s most fundamental task.”

There’s more:  “…we have never been swayed by political or commercial influence.’’ And, to the Commission, “You say that it is important that members of society – government, corporate and private citizens – are not able to influence one provider with the opportunities for differing views to be expressed.  We agree, and as gatekeepers as of many of the most august newsrooms and publications in the country would never let that happen.”

Oh no. Dearie me… August? And it reads as if they actually believe it.

 Let’s remember that they said this, that they actually put it this into writing. And it let’s insist that from now onwards they translate their flowery rhetoric into actual practice. Starting with examining the phenomenon of hate being deliberately fanned against Trump in the US, and in this country and sheeting it home to where it belongs,  would be a belated start. Just some effort, at least,  to provide objectivity on crucial issues would make a nice change.

**http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17341/amy-brooke-downplaying-the-very-real-threats-to-nz/?mc_cid=e632cab3ff&mc_eid=2eadea2444

**And for the important stories which are so relevant in election year,  check out

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

Recycling Bill English? Or we, the people…?

Are our supposedly superior, wise politicians costing us too much?

Should we keep regarding them as born to be in charge of us all? Or, lest we forget… is it time we grew up, as a people?

New Zealanders have understandably lost confidence in our politicians – not only to actually listen to New Zealanders – which they demonstrably don’t – but to even be competent.  Too many government policies no longer favour the public good. So we are joining other Western countries no longer impressed by being governed by political classes paying far too little attention to putting the interests of their own citizens first, and with far too much unwarranted confidence in their own decision-making.  Something so often happens to very ordinary people once they become politicians – and the public here – as in England and elsewhere  –  heartened by  Brexit’s stunning win,  is now questioning how our political system works, and how we can rein in our born-to-rule politicians. And yes – we do have a practicable solution within reach – The 100 Days  – see www.100days.co.nz . Or are we happy to still be led by the nose…?

In a recent massive throw-out from my study, I came across an old reply to me from Bill English.  I can’t say I’m surprised at its evasiveness, though, to be fair, it was written in 2002 – 15 years ago  – and found again only now. And certainly, people do grow up intellectually. However it’s well said that anyone can become a Prime Minister – as John Key, a supremely ambitious money trader proved – arguably causing a great deal of damage to the country – damage that that would horrify our parents and grandparents who fought in more than two World Wars, so many servicemen and women giving their lives to preserve New Zealand – and a freedom and way of life now fast being lost to us.

So what of our present Prime Minister, whose reply to me came when I wrote, finding (as with others) it almost incredible what he said when comparing one of the  Lord of the Rings films to Tolkien’s masterpiece. What he stated was that his “preference” was for the film. But, hmm,  well no – he hadn’t actually read the books. 

So how could there be any preference there? It won’t be lost on the reader that one can’t compare one thing to another …unless one is familiar with both.

But then, when did the reality that facts don’t line up ever bother a politician?  When also queried about his use of the word “elitist” in apparently a pejorative sense, a comment which might well raise doubts about whether he thought Tolkien’s books too high-powered intellectually to be accessible to the ordinary reader (or to him?)  – and reminded that bright children down at intermediate school level were reading them) –  he pulled a metaphorical rabbit from a hat.  With the kind of double-speak in which politicians excel, he replied, “The film is now definitive of the book – people will see Jackson’s Ents, (sic) Helms Deep is now Jackson’s Deep”.

Well no – it isn’t and his “definitive” means basically nothing. Moreover, as an English graduate,  our now Prime Minister should have been well aware that the printed word can convey nuances and subtleties which the visual version of a story cannot match. The omission of Tom Bombadil, for example, who represented important things central to the story (as Tolkien himself noted) but was left out of the film, was a disappointment to many readers of the trilogy.  In fact, any criticisms of Jackson’s film centres on his lack of much-needed editing, as well as his somewhat ham-fisted approach in areas that required more understatement. Even Weta Workshop’s brilliance was not enough to excuse the tedious, repetitious close-ups of the ugliness of the Orcs – and the loveliness of the land of the Elves was not successfully conveyed. Jackson does a better job with horror, than its opposite.

We’re accustomed to say that people are entitled to their opinion. But what sort of opinion rests upon no foundation?  Our present PM’s preference for a film -compared to a book which he had never read – is of course no preference at all. Ah, but politicians can bluster – as in his reply, when he added that,  “- well there are lots of books more challenging than Lord of the Rings.” But then, again, if he hadn’t actually read The Rings trilogy…to what “more challenging” books would he be capable of comparing it?

Coming again upon this correspondence, it struck me how far what the Irish call “the gift of the gab” can carry a politician. Add it to an ability to exude charisma – and a country is in danger. It has happened right throughout history and we never seem to learn from it, and to question why we are so foolish as to keep paying lip service to the notion that “leadership” is more important than the knowledge that any real democracy depends upon the genuine participation of so-called ordinary men and women, conducting their own lives, prioritising their families – but with a close eye on what their politicians are up to.

Yet we are aware that  the cult of leadership which grows around determined individuals has led to the greatest bloodbaths of all  –  and the  siren call of  highly destructive individuals  – the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, today’s  Kim Jong–un and so on whose indifference to what happens to their own people, sacrificed to their  leader’s ambitions,  should be a lesson to us. Wars in which scores of millions die pointlessly and needlessly are a twisted tribute to the danger of that concept of the importance of leadership which we are always being asked to defer to. And as a well-respected British journalist, under the pseudonym of Alpha of the Plough pointed out, “There is a large part of the public …which will believe anything because it hasn’t the faculty of judging anything but the size of the crowd, and will always follow the ass with the longest ears and the loudest bray.”

If it strikes some readers that this is a very apt description not only of some of our recent leaders –  but also now of the mainstream media, playing follow-the leader not only in their admiration for our recently departed  and disastrously charismatic Prime Minister –  very few of us would disagree. The now predominantly left-wing media have their favourite politicians, and coat-tail one another’s thinking with regard to the mis-called” liberal” and “progressive” issues of the day. Our mainstream commentators’ over-confident pronouncements have become inimical to quality thinking. Editors now routinely suppress letters from correspondents with whom they disagree. Nor is it a healthy sign that comments in response to unsigned editorialists and opinion-writers in some major New Zealand newspapers on-line have now been discontinued. In this respect, the NBR (National Business Review) deserves readers’ support for its healthy promotion of vigorous debate and feedback.

However, that silent majority which the politicians still fear, anxious lest they begin to realise their real power, can take heart. An excellent new monthly, Your Voice, edited by Mykeljon Winkel, available online or as  a print subscription, is doing a brilliant job of tackling some of the quite blatant untruths now being peddled in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi…as well as examining other relevant issues of today. It can be found at www.newzealand voice.co.nz. And although an interview with Judith Collins contains a politician’s very typical equivocations and evasiveness in response to direct questions put to her, there are interesting and relevant pieces throughout.  An article by John Ansell, in particular, in the February issue – not Race, Not Gender, Just New Zealander… The Reason for the Existence of the Treaty presents admirably concisely the reason that the Maori chiefs at the time had every good reason to welcome the treaty – and well understood that they were yielding sovereignty to the British Queen.

Other excellent articles in relation to our nation’s history throw more light on the truth of Maori European interaction than today’s media bother to attempt. The March edition includes Bruce Moon’s We Have Just One True History (“And so we come to the Rangiowhia affray, about which probably more flagrant lies have been touted than any event in our history”. Moon’s rigorous research reminds me of Alan Everton’s former excellent dismantling of  Ngai Tahu’s prevarications and the utter distortions, let alone falsehoods which it so successfully employed to squeeze a  third “full and final” settlement for this corporatised pseudo-iwi – one which, on the actual evidence, Parliament should never have awarded.

 But today, as we all know, too bad about actual evidence: it doesn’t count. Today’s deliberate muddying of the waters around treaty issues has basically been for the purpose of allowing conniving iwi on the make, (by no means representing the majority of part-Maori)  to gain more and more economic and totally undemocratic political advantage. And of course of there is always the much loved-microphone – or the newspaper headline , those sops to vanity and hubris obediently supplied by our compliant media, always keen to stir the pot…but not so keen to allow that very necessary debate which helps to arrive at the truth of issues. Yet we are well aware that, in a democracy, exclusive rights proposed in law, intended to be bestowed on any racial group, are simply untenable…and basically unconstitutional. This hasn’t stopped National from ignoring the wishes of the majority of us. Such a party has become a danger to the country and for this reason, David Rankin’s petition, in Change Org, deserves all our support.  https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-abolish-auckland-council-s-maori-statutory-board?recruiter=694585883&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

In a country like New Zealand we have had democratic safeguards to protect us (to some extent only) from the supremely ambitious individuals always there in our political cliques, some with honourable motives – others convinced that we must be inveigled into subscribing to the ideology to which they are wedded – as with the socialist Helen Clarks’ One World Government – and John Key’s attempt to remove the Union Jack from our flag.

The latter of course was line with the wishes of wealthy Communist Chinese working behind-the-scenes to facilitate this, And what of Key’s neglect of so much that badly needs addressing in this country, denying even the unprecedented housing crisis which now has so many New Zealanders impoverished, living in cars, in garages, on the streets? Bill English also showed himself totally ineffectual here…The damage caused by virtually unrestricted immigration, used to create the illusion of economic buoyancy…the sell-out of this country, our productive farms and businesses to Communist Chinese interests  – and the flogging off of our high country sheep stations  to the super-wealthy Americans and others seeking a bolthole – all of whom can buy out New Zealanders’ rights to our own land, our remaining productive industries, our housing stock? These are the legacy of our recent leaders, and the yes-men and-women who surround them in parliament. Sycophancy rules.

In all these destructive policies, at least publicly, our present Prime Minister, Bill English, has been complicit. How much can we rely upon his ability – a consummate yes-man, as John Key’s lieutenant, to face up honestly to what has happened to this country?  Most of us wouldn’t bet on it.  So why ever would we vote for him to be our new Prime Minister? And when the media kept boasting about Key, with his 30% or thereabouts rating as Prime Minister being so very popular, they were guilty of the fact that, looking objectively at the figures, we know that two thirds of the country did not want him there.  60 to 70% did not rate him. But in the eyes of a largely infatuated commentariat, subject to his switched-on charm and smarm; given special interviews; beaming eye contact; flattered by his attention: recipients of bottles of wine, Key could do little wrong – just as Trump can do no right. The lesson from Brexit has apparently been totally lost on our own media circles.

Can we now be called the Stupid Country? What of the then Finance Minister Bill English’s failure in our supposedly representative democracy, to actually represent the wishes of the country when polling made plain New Zealanders opposition to the potentially damaging TPP deal? Where is the actual evidence that he ever stood up to the seemingly folksy but basically autocratic John Key? Compared to other countries – even Australia, for example the ruling National party’s failure to acknowledge this – let alone to acknowledge the housing market disgrace was because if John Key didn’t want to, neither did any of the Nats. No Sir…

Why then of the theory of the wisdom of the crowds – rather than the conclusions of a select few? The ruling National government has apparently been unable to acknowledge the pitfalls in the TPP which have been very plain to the reasonable onlooker. The determination of government to ignore public opinion has perhaps been a tipping point to us all. Perhaps we are beginning to grow up as a people- in the same way as the English have , at last, reclaimed their country from its  EU stranglehold.  And we in this small country have been equally guilty of allowing to be forced on us every failed doctrine that has already caused so much damage in the UK.

Nowhere has the damage caused by obdurate politicians, convinced of their superior thinking and leadership skills, been more evident than recently, across all Europe . What we can fairly call the sheer stupidity of politicians like Angela Merkel –   far too late rethinking her arrogant, authoritarian rulings which have plunged Germany into such disarray  – needs to be recognised for what it was. Europe is now overrun by far more refugees than can be successfully assimilated   –  and among these Isis terrorists have been successfully smuggled in.  Merkel’s virtual bullying of other countries, wherever a Muslim population has now established a considerable and divisive presence, has lead there also to growing social destabilisation, violence and crime, the ill-treatment and raping of women, and mounting welfare bills. Even England is in trouble. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10190/islam-england-france

Diversity, multiculturalism – all the much-touted clichés have now been shown to be quite wrong directions for any country to move in.  The much maligned Enoch Powell’s warning in the 60s that mass immigration would preclude assimilation, and that such a large volume of foreign nationals inevitably concentrated in major cities would lead to ghettoisation, and Balkanisation, was genuinely prophetic, as Michael Davies points out in a recent Australian Spectator. It was the know-best politicians who pilloried him – aided by an always cooperative mass media. Again, it was so-called ordinary people who also warned against Britain yielding its independence and judicial separateness in important areas of national decision-making – such as allowing the judiciary to become subservient to the rulings of Brussels. So very few politicians,  with notable exceptions such as Powell and Margaret Thatcher, (who, loving their own country and its traditions “understood why immigrants would be reluctant to completely abandon theirs) foresaw what lay ahead.

And we in this country are now having to put up with the same sort of ill-thought nonsense emphasising “diversity” – i.e. the lack of assimilation, allowing in those large numbers of immigrants which too often lead to the clash of cultures, the attack on the stabilising values of the home country, the clamour for an undemocratic separateness, and the displacement, today, of our own people in the job market and housing. This, apart even from that fact we are losing our most productive farmland to the rapacious Communist Chinese’s self-serving interests – and the best of our high country sheep stations to those others plum-picking land now priced well beyond the reach of New Zealanders ourselves.

Every now and again we get trotted out Thomas Carlyle’s objection to democracy: as classicist Peter Jones recounts in the Spectator article Enemies of the People. “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. In other words, infinitely wise politician should tell the ignorant mob what to think, not vice versa.

What when we can say, with very good reason, that we do not believe in the collective wisdom of ignorant or self-serving politicians, led by the nose too often by vested interest groups  – and/or letting us down by their simple inability to devote time to the thorough research needed to establish the truth of issues?

Athenians invented direct democracy in 508BC, lasting until 323 BC, which handed to the “demos”, citizens in the assembly, the power to decide on policy. Objections were raised from the beginning by those who thought their thinking was superior… Plato thought a state could be well governed only by Platonic philosophers. Aristotle thought that monarchy would be the best of all – Catch-22 – if only someone of the required standard could be found. On went the objections, until as Jones points out, it was Plutarch, “a prolific Greek writer of the second century A.D. with a great admiration for Roman stability “– (a stability which the reader will recall didn’t last for very long after all ) … “who really put the boot in, describing the public as “animals… unreasoning, unruly volatile and degenerate”. Interestingly this description will strike the reader as fairly closely summing up our own politicians’ behaviour in the debating chamber. However, as “Plutarch dominated discussions in the West about the best form of government from the 16th till the 19th century, his idea that rule by the demos could be nothing but mob rule became the knee-jerk position, and still is.  Animals, obviously.”

Make no mistake – our politicians love to think this.  (Remember Helen Clark’s “feral” and “inbreds”?  And Hilary Clinton’s “A basket of deplorables.”)

But they’ve been proved wrong by the most free, successful,  and democratic country in the world – Switzerland. And there is absolutely no reason why we New Zealanders can’t turn our own minds to insist that we follow a system which really works – in contrast to the mess our political parties have made to our own country – where the pace is accelerating to destroy of so much of what we have left.

Peter Jones concludes, “In the howls about mob rule,  however, Switzerland, virtually a direct democracy for some 600 years, somehow never features.” Switzerland did even better than this – not content with being virtually a direct democracy, the Swiss people themselves decided they had had enough of being over-ruled by damaging leaders. Their brilliant solution was to fight for the 100 Days provision. They won this right about 160 years ago. It ensures any legislation passed by Parliament, no matter by what political party or by whatever coalition is currently in power in the country… every piece of legislation must wait for 100 Days before it can come into force. The Swiss people can themselves then decide whether or not they agree,  or whether they want to challenge it.

If the latter, before the end of the 100 Days period, if as few as 50,000 people (in a country double our population, call for a vote  – in New Zealand it would be proportionately about 26,000 ) then that’s enough. A vote is held – it’s called the Facultative Referendum, and whatever the people say is binding on the government.

So successful has this been that Swiss politicians are merely part-time. Meeting one day  only a week, they can hold down other jobs… as lawyers, teachers, doctors, housewives, tradesmen… and their Parliament needs to meet only four times a year. No Helen Clark or Bill English or John Key can dig in, clinging to virtually supreme power and dominating the ruling party. The Swiss make sure of this by allowing the President to stay in office for one year only. Their seven-only member cabinet, simply take turns to be President. It works very well.

 Why can’t we now fight for the same? Well, we can, and should. It is the best possible system to secure a real democracy. And to all the Big Names anxious to tell us it wouldn’t work, we can say – This is nonsense – it does. In fact it is working better than any other political system today.

As the last thing that politicians want is to lose their power, and we can count on a now thoroughly dumbed-down, but highly opiniated media to rubbish any concept that doesn’t send power to their left-wing cohorts, it is up to us, the real New Zealanders, remembering the hard work and sacrifices our own people have made for four generations, to do our own bit.

How? Email your MP. Mail the Prime Minister, the leader and members of the Opposition, the leaders of all the political parties, and ask them whether or not they are willing to hand back the decision-making to the people of New Zealand. Call your MPs….They will be very polite to you in election year…

This is a real test of whether or not our politicians believe in a democracy. But we know they don’t want a democracy – they want to rule us – and are now busy making all those hasty promises routinely made in election-year,  promising the reforms so conveniently held until then.

There are so many ways you can help. Tell others…You can send on to as many as you can the fact of our 100 days campaign…both on Facebook, and on- site – See 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz  You can write letters to the paper. You can complain to the Press Council if the editor keeps rejecting them…You can talk about it on Talkback.  You can join us – support us, even a little financially, if you can.

 It means at least a little effort – not much time in busy people’s lives. But as we all have a moral responsibility, which reaches beyond us and our families towards the community, and towards our country, safeguarding what our parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts fought  and gave their lives for, it can be argued that we have no right at all to do nothing. We need to insist on the reshaping of our political and landscape. Will you help?

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through Kindle, www.copypress.co.nz or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

 

 

 

Would you prefer a Nigel Farage or a John Key?

Would you sooner have a Nigel Farage, or a John Key?

I was delighted by the fact that when, as Convener of our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement, we first launched this democratic campaign – (the off-shoot of the Summer Sounds Symposium  (www.summersounds.co.nz) – one of the first names that appeared as a website subscriber was that of Nigel Farage. A shared a contact, a close UKIP supporter, had previously provided a weekly commentary on international affairs for the then Canterbury on Air, when I was providing a weekly round-up on national affairs.  The Australian  initiative, Give Us Back Our Country,  co-founded by the greatly respected Professor David Flint, with Jai Martinkovits, cites our 100 Days movement and my book, 100 Days Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong,  and how we can control our politicians, as its inspiration.  

A correlation has been drawn between the surge in Brexit support and Obama coming over to the UK with instructions on how to vote, including barely-veiled threats. The English don’t like being told what to do – possibly especially by Barack Obama. The reaction was considerable and immediate. Another little-known fact is that a senior campaign adviser to Cameron’s Conservative Party was Jim Messina, who was also Obama’s  campaign adviser, and heads the biggest pro-Hillary super PAC.  Crony capitalism no longer has a good press. Who believes the trickle-down theorizing any more? It has by no means resembled anything like a genuinely free market.

Many of us will have watched the Brexit outcome with special interest. One of the most heartening things about its victory, which so many of us here also hoped for, is that it has been a triumph of hope – and imagination.

In contrast, one of the most deplorable things has been the basic spite voiced against Nigel Farage by prominent figures here and overseas in the media in-groups. We are used to words like “populism” being used, deliberately designed to disparage ordinary people, those in whom the brilliant Christian writer GK Chesterton placed so much trust – when it comes to a showdown between their values and those of the moneyed establishment.

Uncharacteristically, given The Spectator’s support for the Leave campaign, its editor, Fraser Nelson wrote an unpleasant blog. He also got wrong the meaning of the word tangential.  We undoubtedly owe the Brexit campaign victory first of all to Nigel Farage, but Nelson attempts to diminish his legacy. E.g. “Nigel Farage has been a tangential figure in the Brexit campaign, but he’s the only one prepared to do a victory lap with the votes still being counted, so we see him on the TV. What he says is disgusting. ‘A victory for real people, a victory for decent people’ he says – and what about those who voted for Remain? One of the many advantages of a Brexit vote would be to put UKIP, and Farage, out of business.”

This is not only unfair but basically nasty. To attack Farage for pointing out that the majority of the people England and Wales stood up against the fear-mongering of the establishment, calling them real people, decent people, was a thing of the moment, praising them for their courage – which is hard enough to draw upon for so many in these politically correct times.

It also been a characteristic of the Left, in particular, to keep invoking a right-wing bogeyman against all those wanting Brexit  – which is just nonsense. On the whole, the venom has come from (of course, by no means all) Bremain spokesmen. We were treated to a very good example of this when Boris Johnson was booed when he emerged to speak, once the results were known. The point is that this mob waited outside his house to do just this. Hardly appropriate, let alone generous.

At home, from New Zealand Herald columnist Toby Manhire came, “And yet all three of them – Johnson, Cameron and Gove – have proved comfortably less outrageous, scaremongering and odious than Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, who produced a billboard with the words “Breaking Point”, showing, in what some saw as an echo of Nazi propaganda, a queue of refugees winding into Slovenia, and has pressed every available xenophobic button, playing to Britons’ basest fears.”

Ah, the word xenophobia,  designed like other clichés of the bien pensant among our commentators –  such as racism and homophobia –  to be thrown at those who are considered too incapable of doing their own thinking… The catch is that the so-called ordinary people did think through all this. And they thought that they had enough of their own freedom, independence, and the directions of the own country being wrested away from them.

While too many quasi-intellectuals among the journalists were vaporising  at the thought of “the odious” Nigel Farage, the majority of English and Welsh were celebrating …Cometh the hour, cometh the man – the individual who stands up to be counted, inspiring others – never the leaders – but other individuals – to rise and stand beside him – or her.

What is apparently too obvious for Toby Manhire to understand is that the view of refugees winding into Slovenia was a snapshot of reality. Reality often makes things uncomfortable for those not keen on facing it. The virtual invasion – by no means entirely of genuine refugees, but also of those (understandably) anxious to improve their lot in economic terms – (among whom are now estimated to be thousands of radical Islamists, many deliberately planted, and groomed for terrorist activities) is a huge threat to the stability of Europe. The sheer numbers who have poured in, and are still on the move, present an unprecedented threat to countries far from able to sustain such a demand on their economies, their housing, and their social services.

The EU has shown itself utterly incapable of providing a realistic solution to these mass migrations, which are essentially a grave threat to countries they are targeting.  When Manhire, without any attribution, calls Farage’s important warning “what some saw as an echo of Nazi propaganda,” – we should ask – Who saw? Where are your sources? Is this simply a piece of Manhire propaganda – or a quote from those, as ever, fearful of facing the truth?

In the UK itself, as the pundits; the pollsters; we-know-best-economists; the trust-us-we-are-the Establishment:  the I-know-best-Barack Obama: all were confounded by so-called ordinary men and women turning their backs. Instead, they listened to the man who inspired them with the courage to face up even to the fact that economic uncertainty would undoubtedly lie ahead – and might even disadvantage some of them.

And still, they stood up to be counted. In fact one of the most interesting aspects of the Brexit vote is that there would undoubtedly have been Remain voters who would like very much to have joined them, but who, in the face of all the scaremongering and the threats, were too worried about their jobs and financial futures – but who would otherwise have voted to go.

On the other hand, human nature being what it is, there is always jealousy – and this came not only from among the very supporters of Nigel Farage who would now like to take over to lead UKIP, saying their leader has  achieved what he wanted and it’s time for him to go. (Shades of the Conservative Party’s turning on Margaret Thatcher  – there are always Judases.) Just as un-edifying, among the breakaway Brexit supporters from the Conservative Party there was anger when Nigel Farage, instead of one of their own, was chosen to lead an important Brexit BBC debate – even though it is thanks above all to this one man that England has shaken off the shackles of an arrogant, virtually fascist EU.

Moreover, too much praise has been heaped on David Cameron, as if he heroically granted the people of Britain a referendum, to correct the situation in which the country has found itself – or, rather, in which their politicians had landed them.

On the contrary, Cameron did everything he could to avoid a referendum. As The Spectator illustrates, “Unable to make a positive case for staying in the EU, he instead tells us that Britain is trapped within it and that the penalties for leaving are too severe. His scare stories, peppered with made-up statistics, have served only to underline the emptiness of the case for remaining. It also represents a style of politics that many find repugnant. The warnings from the IMF and OECD and other acronyms have served only to reinforce the caricature of a globalised élite telling the governed what to think.  See http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/ Moreover, according to The Sun, the reason why David Cameron is now primed to resign is that he is asking why he should “do all the hard **** for someone else, just handed over to them on a plate?”

The Spectator columnist Peter Orborne’s  May 28 article, “The new dodgy dossiers”, illustrated how “The Chancellor and PM are using every dirty trick in the Blairite book to win a Remain vote. “ His conclusion? That what Cameron and Osborne were doing was not only morally wrong; it was politically disastrous.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/why-osbornes-dodgy-dossiers-are-even-worse-than-blairs/

It would be good to be able to respect politicians more, both for their language – and for putting the interests of their country first. This was not happening under Cameron’s leadership, where his Chancellor, George Osborne, employed the sledgehammer of fear-mongering tactics so much the Bremain campaign resorted to concocting figures – such as “his now notorious claim that households would be 4300 British pounds worse off.” And still the people had courage to vote NO. Chesterton would have been proud of them.

Moreover, “Michael Gove revealed how, as a cabinet member, he regularly finds himself having to process edicts, rules and regulations that have been framed at European level. Laws that no one in Britain had asked for, and which no one elected to the House of Commons has the power to change. What we refer to as British government is increasingly no such thing. It involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove.”

“Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s chief strategist for many years, gave an example of this institutional decay. A few months into his job in No. 10, he was dismayed to find his colleagues making slow progress, because they were all bogged down by paperwork that he didn’t recognise. He asked for an audit, and was shocked by the results: only a third of what the government was doing was related to its agenda. Just over half was processing orders from Brussels. To him, this was more than just a headache: it was an insidious and accelerating bureaucratic takeover.”

David Cameron basically did not want a referendum. But then, what leader ever does – except, as with John Key, because he thought he was popular enough to get his own way – removing our country’s flag?

There is one great lesson to be taken from this rebellion by the majority of the English and Welsh. (Scotland, which has received far more in the way of financial advantage from its association with England than it has returned, and which appears is due for a reality lesson, can be discounted here.) The lesson is the folly of allowing a country to be dominated by a leader and his or her cabal – which is what a too-obedient cabinet basically is. As is ours, in New Zealand.

The corollary – the importance of the individual standing up to be counted – as Nigel Farage as done – has its echoes right down throughout history.

It carries an important lesson for New Zealanders dismayed at John Key’s virtual takeover of the country, exercising apparently near-complete authority over his cabinet,  none of who whom are showing the moral courage to stand up to him.  However, the deterioration in hope on the part of so many New Zealanders who have seen the collapse of social standards and the lack of accountability for this from recent governments, means the anti-establishment tide is turning in this country, too.

The lamentable lack of any real action to make sure that New Zealanders are basically able to access affordable housing;  jobs which provide a decent living wage  – without mothers being forced to dump their babies in crèches to go out to work;  the influx of immigrants putting pressure on all social services – with no comprehensive action  at all by the government to prioritise the interest of New Zealanders over those moving to acquire our land, our farms, our most productive businesses and our housing stock? John Key has basically ignored the needs of so many. His tenure as Prime Minister has been highly damaging.

The Swiss know, as did the Roman Republic, the danger of letting one man retain power for more than a year. It is time to move towards annually rotating what should be basically the chairmanship of a political party in Parliament  – rather than retaining our present system of a dictatorial leadership digging in for the long haul.

These are now precedents for New Zealanders themselves to stand up to be counted. The Australians are already doing so, with their Give Us back our Country movement.

Every individual who supports us, helps to make this possible. And if there’s one thing that Brexit has taught us, it’s the importance of individuals.

It’s been said that  “One man with courage makes a majority.” Nigel Farage did.

© Amy Brooke

Our 100 Days movement needs individuals to contribute what they can – no donation is too small  – to help send our message right around the country.

We can count on no funding to assist coming from political or moneyed power groups with their own vested interests. But we can be proud of this!

Do visit us to see how you can help. Please let family, friends, colleagues know about our www.100days.co.nz.

SHARE or LIKE on Facebook

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available on Kindle, or through www.copypress.co.nz and HATM Publishers.

Intimidated? Bullied? Time for NZers, too, to fight back?

Born during the years of the murderous dictator Stalin, the young Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko began to cast a fresh eye over the oppressive USSR of the 60s. He himself was a gifted athlete, with a geologist father, and with both parents descended from families of Russian nobility. His two grandfathers were arrested during Stalin’s purges as “enemies of the people”.  Yevtushenko’s own refusal to compromise over what he saw as the truth of things, and over the importance of good poetry (now largely suffocated in the Post-Poetry pretentiousness of our cultural decline) made him a target for the violent hostility of those settling for political dogmatism.  His challenging the Soviet distortions of historical facts, including the Nazi massacre of the Jewish population of Kiev in September 1941, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar was an act of conscience, although he always denied being brave. But he believed, like Shostakovich, in the importance of acting according to conscience. The result was his most famous poem, Babi Yar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar_in_poetry 

In 1957, he was expelled from the Literary Institute for “individualism”… (which brings echoes of today’s blacklisting in this country of individuals (I can vouch for this from personal experience) challenging our literary in-groups, particularly the politicisation of children’s writing. The blacklisting of those refusing to adhere to the required “themes” of “biculturalism”, political “relevance” and “national identity” – and the targeting of teachers objecting to the increasing and inappropriate racial grandstanding throughout our schools’ curricula today: all these bring to mind the PC mean-mindedness the late Charlotte Dawson sadly experienced in this country.

What particularly struck me, discovering, in my 20s, Yevtushenko’s poem “Talk”, was that while discounting the praise of those who called him a brave man, he ended with lines which have grown even more relevant for us now in the West, today white-anted by the new intolerance of free speech masquerading as “liberalism”.

“How sharply our children will be ashamed
taking at last their vengeance for these horrors
remembering how in so strange a time
common integrity could look like courage.”

http://thewonderingminstrels.blogspot.co.nz/2005/10/talk-yevgeny-yevtushenko.html

To those who in innocence protest that we are the West, surely, not the Soviet Russia of a Yevtushenko, a Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn – we would do well to take on board Solzhenitsyn’s warning that “the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive”. There is little doubt that  what the late great Times columnist Bernard Levin described as “the atrophy of moral judgment”,  calling it the characteristic disease of our times – is the inability to see what is in reality an evil  – and the willingness to condone it.

The reality is that in New Zealand now, too, we’re being culturally, politically and morally bullied in the name of “tolerance”. On flagship issues such as gay marriage – an obvious dead-end in biological terms, but now supported by the demand from the growingly strident LGTB (lesbian, gay, and transgender, bisexual) fraternity trumpeting the new fashion of transgender identity, what became a reasonable demand to respect the privacy of individuals in their own homes is being extended. The tolerance long offered to individuals in a free society to make their own choices is by no means being returned.

The real bullying throughout the West is now characterised by this aggressive intolerance and antagonism – now extending to an attack on those who object to vulnerable children being propagandised in schools, or to girls being exposed to transgender males invading toilets and changing rooms. Querying what is actually happening to a once family-stabilised society – where children were best protected as nature intended, by a biological father and mother – now meets with even vindictive opposition. In America (the Land of the Free…) those claiming the right for their own beliefs to be respected can now expect to be met with a wave of intolerance, aggression, vilification – even to be taken to court and sued on some anti-discrimination pretext.  Debate is a no-no…except for those drawing on the very courage which Solzhenitsyn called common integrity.

And yet, we have the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, in honour of the Russian physicist and dissident, Andrei Sakharov – (who, together with his wife Yelena Bonner, faced state persecution while fighting for the necessity of freedom of speech). It is still awarded to individuals as brave as Raif Badawi http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20151215STO07590/Sakharov-Prize-Raif-Badawi-was-brave-enough-to-say-no-to-their-barbarity

The irony is considerable, given that public opinion and support for the European Union has plunged, due to the number of peremptory edicts continually coming from the unelected, unrepresentative body of the European Commission.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8224/european-union-support  Its administrative bureaucracy has tirelessly worked to restrict the sovereignty of the 28 nation states comprising the European Union. There is little doubt that its proposed code of conduct, attempting to ban “hate speech”, is a direct attempt to impose politically correct thinking and behaviour on those within its ambit.

But how little different are we now? Universities were once regarded as fiercely independent bastions of freedom in debate, insisting on the right of individuals to fairly engage in intellectually defending their viewpoints. So I recall my then shock, three or four years ago, when Wellington’s Victoria University refused to allow a debate on that most extraordinary of global cults, the massively financially supported claim of man-made global warming and the supposed culpability of CO2.  In spite of the fact that an almost certainly natural, cyclical period of global warming ended approximately in 1998 – as well-qualified scientists – deliberately denied debating platforms in this country –  have well substantiated, there is now so much financial and career investment in buying into the global warming hysteria that credulous action groups have forgotten what Upton Sinclair pointed out:  “ It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” And so many university grants and positions now depend upon individuals endorsing the group-think which has become so characteristic of our times.

From Oxford and Cambridge, one-time flagships of intellectual freedom, come these reports of students refusing to even attend lectures, let alone to debate points of view, which challenge their highly programmedthinking.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/30/jesus-christ-would-be-banned-from-uk-universities-today-oxford-p/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

And in the US, the bastion of freedom? https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/free-speech-is-under-attack-on-the-

How many New Zealanders would disagree with the reminder that it is better to debate a question without settling it – than to settle a question without debate?  Our parents’ generation and those preceding them unquestioningly accepted what most of us were brought up to acknowledge –  how important  it is in a free society to respect individuals’ beliefs, even if one doesn’t agree with them – and to be allowed to say so.

Well, we all once knew. But it isn’t happening any more.  Over a whole range of topics on important issues of the day, the individual brave enough to say, for example – I respect your right to believe what you do, but for my own part, I disagree with the current liberal thinking about gay “marriage” being a genuine marriage – and regard it as an obvious contradiction in biological terms – can now expect, as in America – to be met with a wave of intolerance, aggression, vilification – even to be taken to court and sued on some anti-discrimination pretext.  The very groups attacking the respect for the traditional family as the most important and stabilising unit of Western society, and trumpeting accusations of intolerance, are characterised now by that extraordinary intolerance of debate.

Yet debate is the bedrock of democracy in any culture or political system. It is a fundamental part of freedom of expression which is itself recognised world-wide as a basic human right. To realise the importance of debate we just have to look at the alternative. There are numerous examples in history of autocrats who demanded blind acceptance of their rule, brooked no criticism, stamped out dissent and locked up opponents. There still are. Countries particularly oppressive include Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, closer to home, and moving down the Pacific, Communist China. These all act as repressive societies. The results are governments that lack accountability and systems that breed corruption, resort to violence and today imprison their own Solzhenitsyn’s Sakharovs, Yevtushenkos.

Schools in many countries have debating societies. As Peter Millet, the British Ambassador to Libya reminds many of us: “At my school… we were encouraged by our teachers to tackle the most controversial subjects of the day. It taught us skills that have been invaluable in our working lives: about the importance of preparation, about setting out key points in a simple and logical way, and about anticipating the counter-arguments.

“We also learned that debating was not about winning the vote, but about getting to the heart of the matter. Yes, the vote was about which side presented their facts in the most effective way. But the purpose of the debate was to expose all the vital issues to public scrutiny. Truth was more important than victory.”

Apparently, what we in the West now need to be reminded of, when faced with the intolerance and intimidation now deliberately used as weapons to prevent us from challenging what is happening abroad, and in our schools  – is the importance of courage. Shouldn’t we be opposing the deliberate targeting of our children and what is now regarded as the worrying decadence transforming the West, with its move towards liberal-thinking totalitarianism?  To act according to conscience is no less important now than it was to Yevtusheno, when challenging the corruption of the former USSR.

In the words of another individual to whom we owe so much: “Intellectual freedom is essential — freedom to obtain and distribute information; freedom for open-minded and unhearing debate; and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices. Such freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorship.” Andrei Sakharov.


© Amy Brooke.

Our 100 Days movement needs individuals to contribute what they can – no donation is too small   – to help send our message right around the country. Will you?

We can count on no funding to assist coming from political or moneyed power groups with their own vested interests. But we can be proud of this!

Do visit us to see how you can help – www.100days.co.nz and SHARE on Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available on Kindle, or through www.copypress.co.nz and HATM Publishers.

A farcical flag sideshow & out-dated political system

The turning of the tide? Why we need the country run properly.

In spite of the spin Key enthusiasts are putting on it, the Prime Minister has well and truly lost on this sideshow, damaging his own credibility. Nor was it a close call – in contrast to the usual media-mouths’ claims. And what of TV’s Mike Hosking’s assurance that the proposed flag replacement would win, in a tight vote?  Out in the real world, the New Zealand flag romped home – well ahead of its uninspiring competition. And the Prime Minister’s pet project has cost him dearly, in terms of the recognition that leaders with an agenda tend to cost a country too much.

Not before time, some are arguing, looking at the lacklustre performance of his government – in spite of all the spin being put on issues – (a rock star economy?)- where it is not only failing to deliver – but is doing very poorly.  Catch-22 for most New Zealanders is that the prospect of once more simply replacing the party temporarily in power by an equally lacklustre Opposition has become just as unpalatable.

 Few would now claim to have any confidence in our perceivably out-dated political system. And although New Zealand First, its leader constantly demonised by the media,  far more accurately represents in its stated  aims New Zealanders’  own vision for our country –  http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/fifteen-principles  – the political party game-playing as a whole is increasingly viewed as unsatisfactory. Change is in the air.

The very real anger of so many that even life-saving services have been cut to the bone – while the Prime Minister has prioritised $25 million  in all-out attempt to have his own way on the flag issue –  has brought home the fact that our political processes can be and have been hijacked by political junkies. We are now being confronted by career politicians in the sense that our MPs are perceived to be failing to represent their electorates in favour of toeing the party line, never stepping over it to risk their privileges and perks by voting against a leader’s damaging proposals.

 Why risk the rewards  parliamentarians have long contrived for themselves and their partners –  even after life in parliament  – ongoing benefits contrived at the expense of taxpayers, such as free international air travel for life – not on the basis of need, and not failing to advantage already very wealthy  individuals? And while in office, in addition to generous housing allowances, there are 20 free flights a year for partners MPs (30 for partners of ministers), as well as hotel and meal allowances.

Moreover, the ongoing farce of handpicking arguably over-paid individuals to review potential constitutional proposals – or to select the finalists from flag design competitions – has little to do with ensuring genuinely independent scrutineers. Members of the flag design committee, faced with criticism of the essential sameness of three of the flags featuring a fern leaf, have now admitted that what the Prime Minister personally wanted influenced their choice. Who’s surprised?

So what did the $25 million pay for? And why would this now cash-strapped country, where essential services such as  hospitals, the police force, sufficient refuges for the mentally ill, the drug-addicted  and women’s refuges are being cut to the bone where tight funding has caused CYF to cut beds from its youth justice residences, increasing their waiting-list and causing youngsters to end up in police cells until court…why would the Key government plan to divert  hundreds of millions of dollars to change, world-wide, the images of  our flag, in commissioning unnecessary  replacements, in reprinting specialist books,  new passports, every kind of information necessary  – in representations in embassies? This massively expensive and totally unnecessary enterprise did not originate with New Zealanders, but was pushed top-down by one individual with an agenda – precisely the opposite way democracies are meant to be run.

 The contrast between our own poorly performing one, and that of the Swiss people, who have so successfully rejected being ruled by politicians the way we habitually are, is shown by their MPs holding down day jobs as, for example, business or trades people, farmers or  professionals, housewives and so on, meeting only one day a week in parliament. In this far more successful country, being an MP is not a full-time job or a career, as here.  Moreover, as the Swiss people themselves fought for and won the right  the right to scrutinise all legislation passed by parliament, their politicians know better than to try to push their own agenda onto  the country  – as we saw happen in this country with the infamous  anti-smacking legislation.

Here,  Key arrogantly ignored the views of over 85% of the electorate to endorse  legislation originating from the far Left’s  Sue Bradford, and endorsed by the equally far Left Helen Clark – with her own suspect agenda. Legislation which has done nothing whatever to make any impact on the appalling rate of child abuse found predominantly in one section of the community has had, as foreseen, a destructive effect on the confidence of good, conservative parents using their own judgment when disciplining misbehaving children.  And from it has come the fear of police knocking at the door as a result of an ill-disposed neighbour, the teacher with an agenda. The consequences of this ill-thought legislation were very obvious – and very determinedly ignored. By the Prime Minister.

However, one of very welcome result of the collapse of John Key’s extraordinary personal push to get rid of the flag which means so much to the majority of New Zealanders, is that the question is being asked – why? Why did he constantly denigrate the historical significance of our flag, attacking it as “colonial” – when in fact both Euro-New Zealanders and those of Maori descent have profited enormously from the colonisation of this country? The constant cheap attacks on “colonisation” show not only a marked ignorance of the very real benefits that came with our ancestors (shared by part-Maori today – as there are no longer any full-blooded Maori). The success of the coexistence of both Maori and European of previous generations is shown by the willingness with which each have regarded intermarriage as the norm.

In fact it was not until the deliberate radicalisation of part-Maori by Marxist-indoctrinated, carefully selected Maori individuals in the 1960s – (some sent overseas to undergo a process of destructive Marxist indoctrination)  – groomed to return to beat the drum of resentment – that a climate of resentment among young Maori in particular  was deliberately fostered. And yet, while attacking our inaccurately described colonial flag, the Prime Minister has been extraordinarily accommodating towards the radicalised flag of Maori separatism – a concept roundly rejected by the Treaty of Waitangi…with its vision of One People, united under the Crown.

In contrast to Key’s attack on our flag, comes the comment of a correspondent stating what so many New Zealanders feel: “I value history and tradition, and I don’t think the change came from the community. It came from the Prime Minister.  I just feel it’s been a large waste of money.”

More and more New Zealanders are perturbed about not being consulted on vital issues of the day- such as the signing of the TPPA, the radicalised agenda being pushed onto schoolchildren and staff throughout the country in relation to prioritising notions of Maori separatism and privilege; a highly damaging sex education agenda; and the replacement of subjects of real value with trivia, under the umbrella of environmental fundamentalism. This, coupled with the increasing burden of a multiplication of unnecessary compliance issues being dumped onto the schools, the professions, and the trades are making life less and less attractive for ordinary New Zealanders just trying to get by. Add to this the fact that the country is now being disadvantaged  not only by  being excluded from the decisions being made on important issues – but that the job losses are ongoing , with many faced with not even being able to afford houses in areas where they need to live and work.

Moreover, the exodus from Auckland of well-heeled property buyers making a grab for land and housing in other locations throughout the country means that multiple-house buyers are having a detrimental effect on the housing market in these areas.

The John Key government is not answering to New Zealanders. And the certainty is growing that it is time for a change…but not the usual cosmetic change of replacing one political party with another, until it in turn is perceived as being equally damaging to the country.

It has been said that nothing is more successful than an idea whose time has come. And the time has undoubtedly come for a new political configuration, to replace the anachronistic and outworn system of simply temporarily exchanging the politburo at the top for the next one in turn. And as Barbara Tuchman reminds us in her intriguing assessment of the performance of MPs in history, “Governments get most issues wrong.”

We can do better.  We can elect to govern ourselves, as the Swiss people do. It is the last thing that our politicians want. What politicians do want is power.  And politicians holding onto power has nothing whatever to do with the country operating as a genuine democracy.

Switzerland is the only country in the world which has achieved what is so often derided by those who mostly fear it – government by the people themselves.  And it undoubtedly makes our politicians highly uncomfortable to face the fact that it is the Swiss people’s ability to control their own government which has made them the most successful and prosperous country in the world. Their government acknowledges this – and calls them, the people, sovereign.

How did they do this? Ultimately by one particular piece of legislation which enshrined their right to call a halt to any legislation passed by government, while they examined it themselves. What has too often happened here – late-night sittings of parliament to push legislation through before Christmas or before the Easter holiday would be a waste of time in Switzerland. Their 100 Days scrutiny period – for the country to say yes, or no – prevents the deal-making by political parties behind the scenes which our country has too often had inflicted on it. And most importantly, it prevents self-willed individuals like John Key essentially having his own way.

As politicians (and the very wealthy – whose agendas so often interplay)  will be implacably opposed to any notion of supporting our 100 Days initiative, to help make our country as democratic and successful as it should be, this movement needs your grassroots support. If all those  concerned about what is happening help to send  it around the country, we will reach a tipping point – not only because this is an idea whose time has well and truly come – but because more and more New Zealanders are fed up with being overruled by politicians, and seeing our country being sold out under our feet.

No only is this the most promising, in fact it is the only really practicable way we have to claim back our country. And you are very much needed to help.

 Visit us to see how – www.100days.co.nz and SHARE on Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

“The greatest works are done by the ones. The hundreds do not often do much, the companies never. It is the units, the single individuals, that are the power and the might. Individual effort, is, after all, the grand thing.”  Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

© Amy Brooke, Convener. www.100days.co. NZ