I wonder if we realise how much we owe Ian Wishart?

I wonder if we realise how much we owe Ian Wishart?

https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/24448/catholic-church-in-crisis-save-money-or-save-souls/

Looking back at the history of INVESTIGATE  magazine should very much bring home to us the fact that writer and publisher Ian Wishart made the holes in the hedges on so many issues of the day. This was not only in his painstaking analysis of so many of the political and social issues given once-over-lightly treatment by far the majority of our journalists. His refusal to look for anything but the truth of issues behind the façades shielding some of our  most prominent – (and most damaging)  – politicians brought home to so many of us what was, and still is,  happening to this country.

It will take a long time indeed before his deservedly bestselling books even begin to date. And given the blacklisting given to my own books and columns by a basically malevolent, government-supported literary hierarchy dominated by a thoroughly unscrupulous Left coterie in this country, I owe Ian for his courage in publishing and supporting my own well-researched columns which, too, were before their time.

The neo-Marxist infiltration of our now third-rate education system,  and the pernicious effects on a formerly more unified, less crime-ridden country  – with the deliberate fomenting of a grievance mentality among so many of part-Maori genetic inheritance – were areas which very much concerned a few of us over three decades ago.

The results are now with us – due to the intellectual laziness and vote-buying propensity of our politicians. But that the churches now seem to have lost their own pathway to carry forward the message of the Christian values and beliefs so long fundamental in stabilising Western society, should give us cause for increasing concern. That the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular, long regarded as less likely to give way to contemporary fashions, are  now regarded as needing a reminder of what has always been its central message, is no light matter.

As always, so much depends upon individuals, challenging what has gone wrong. And as one individual who has always stood up to be counted, regardless of whether or not  readers have always agreed with his views –  and as head and shoulders above so many of his journalist colleagues – Ian Wishart deserves all our respect.

© Amy Brooke.

The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution

The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/10/06/our-sickening-sexual-sewer/

Given the support now in schools to inappropriately promoting notions of transgenderism even to small children, and thoroughly confusing so many with the pernicious nonsense that they can choose to be whichever sex they prefer, it’s high time to question the whole notion of the State inappropriately sexualising our children and grandchildren.

That sex education in schools is largely not only inappropriate, and not the business of politicians,  has long been pointed out. That it fails, destabilising and even shocking many children, needs to be more widely recognised.

According to a long-time British Medical Journal study that reviewed 26 trials, there was no delay in initiating sexual intercourse by adolescents participating in pregnancy prevention programmes. They did not improve the use of birth control by young men and women,  nor reduce pregnancy rates – in fact some programmes were associated with a rise in pregnancies.

The trials evaluated programmes in North America, Australia and Europe, including those in New Zealand which has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world.  There is little doubt that the academic theorists behind so many of the far Left destructive ideology long dumped on our children in schools,  and promoted throughout our  now thoroughly discredited universities,  will produce studies arguing exactly the opposite. But agenda-driven conclusions can be dismissed. What is actually happening is obvious everywhere.

Some years back when I wrote on this issue, receiving feedback from a lot of troubled parents, I was struck by a mother contacting me saying that her young daughter had arrived home from school shocked and disturbed. The little girl  remained upset. No prior notice of the information inappropriately thrust upon her had been given to her parents – many of whom today are conned by being told that it will simply be embarrassing for their child to exercise the right to be removed from her/his classes. In fact, I’ve encountered the opposite reaction from children who find them embarrassing and intrusive.  

That young boys subsequently harass girls in the playground is glossed over. And as one worried grandmother recently told me of a misbehaving 10 year old, “This child now knows far more than she should, and the consequences are obvious in her behaviour.”

That sex education has long been deliberately promoted in schools by those with a neo-Marxist agenda who infiltrated the Ministry of Education with the deliberate aim of destabilising the West needs to be far more widely known.

Check out the relevant, thoroughly documented chapter in my book “The 100 days – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”-   P. 89. “Sex education – from the beginning its ill concealed intent was to destroy lives”. Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

Nigel Farage – Cometh the hour, cometh the man…


For so many world-wide, Nigel Farage epitomises that one outstanding individual saying “Go no further…” to the system whereby political classes, so often under highly damaging leadership worldwide,  have distorted the democratic process. https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1047058901621981184/video/1

We are now in a similar situation here in New Zealand with  central authority  over the whole of the country –  which equates to government and power without genuine  accountability – merely a recycling of the less damaging-looking political party every three years.

Is everyone happy with this?  If not SHARE, LIKE and support us on Facebook, and at www.100days.co.nz – to at last claim back this country for New Zealanders – from rule by politicians. Yes, it can be done – and we can do it…as always, it’s up to individuals,

The runaway situation with the never-ending treaty claims, some imaginatively reinvented;  some, on good evidence,  arguably fraudulent;  is compounded by the mess the previous National government has got us into.

Over 300 claims for the foreshore and seabed from opportunistic iwi and hapu?  That we, all New Zealanders, will  be required to actually pay the costs of those claiming against us – as usual!  – is  a prime example of the damage caused to this country by top-down government decision-making –  from which the public are routinely  excluded.

You’ll remember the smooth-tongued John Key and the Minister for  Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson – (formerly Ngai Tahu’ s only too successful lawyer)  – assuring the country there would be very little chance of any claims,  because uninterrupted occupation of these relevant areas would be required. Should he/they be answerable to the country for the costly consequences,  either of their naivety – or even incompetence. Or was there another agenda here?

The real issue is that, as usual, this legislation and other damaging legislation was imposed upon the country by our successive governments which, historically, have got most things wrong.

And what about the ramped-up claims by today’s well-paid, radicalised part-Maori (by no means representative of the majority of New Zealanders, both  part-Maori,  European and of other ancestry) that an almost totally inauthentic “Maori” language be compulsorily inflicted upon the country?

That the highly activist Wellington City Council is now squandering ratepayers’ money on rewriting street and other signs in largely reinvented Maori, without the consent of the majority of ratepayers –  with our most important language, English, in much smaller letters below, is almost credible – although it is not the only local government heading in these unsupported directions.

Today’s reinvented te reo, bearing minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language,  and now including very many thousands of completely made-up, supposedly “Maori” words,  is very much part of the constant push by well-funded activists, many also feathering their own nests highly successfully.

However, New Zealanders as a whole are fed up with legislation imposing upon them markedly  damaging directions, while  highly impoverished areas of the economy suffer a severe  lack of funding  – because of the slush funds of political bribery directed towards those iwi on the make.

And while the Labour government is marching even more firmly down the road of political opportunism and other disastrous directions, it is almost incredible that the National Party leader, Simon Bridges, has spoken out so strongly against what is really an issue of national security – long overdue. This is the requirement for all New Zealand immigrants to be required to pledge to respect our democratic values, and obey the laws which uphold these.

All around the world the consequences of allowing open immigration have been disastrous – with increases in violent crime traceable to a newly immigrant population whose radicalised young men show little respect for women,  and with demands from a radicalised Muslim sector for Sharia law.

Politicians get too much wrong –  and we are all suffering the consequences. Those who claim that our leaders know best could not be more wrong – as well we know. History itself is the best proof of this, and only, “Cometh the hour,  cometh the man” has saved us from so much worse.

It is well and truly time to insist what the Swiss long achieved for themselves – Government by the people, for the people, and of the people – not by the politicians – and for the politicians.

Join us to achieve a tipping point of New Zealanders aiming for just this!

Amy Brooke – Convenor: The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See www.100days.co.nz 

-- 

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media /police activism.

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media and police activism.

 In the gossip circles of a basically close-knit mainstream media, it was reported some time back that unpleasant rumours were swirling about the Prime Minister’s partner. It was called “an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo.” Toxic gossip is not new in these circles. Who can forget the tragic case of the beautiful Charlotte Dawson, a media celebrity in New Zealand which she fled for Australia later, saying that she was “savaged” as a celebrity living in this country? “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village…a tiny country at the end of the year,” she said. Her death by suicide shocked so many – as it should have.

The relevant question is, was she right? Who would deny that the political scene is a toxic one with the jostling for power and ambition underpinning many of the rumours that surface – very often never reaching the public at large, but gaining currency in the media in-groups. The latter have now become equally as little respected – so much so that politicians and the mass media are near the bottom of the least-trusted occupations.  This is tough on those journalists who do try to write with integrity against the tide of the times, including some well worth respect. That they are apparently now in a minority makes it harder for them.

No doubt the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will have a tough road ahead – even disregarding the media rumour mill. New Zealanders will wish her well, with the imminent arrival of her baby. However, paralleling the usual corresponding euphoria which surrounds any “progressive” celebrities, many New Zealanders have been troubled by Arden’s decision to prioritise her own career over what they see as the best interests of a baby…whose primary caregiver, for very good reason, has traditionally been regarded as its mother. By no means isolated comment also maintains she should have let the country know, before the election, that she was pregnant.

However, there is little doubt that Labour’s strategists would have known that if the country knew before the election that its leader was carrying a baby, many would have been concerned – wondering if a vote for her, in such a demanding job, was in the best interests of the child – let alone for the Prime Minister herself.

We cannot but be aware that many solo mothers have a far more demanding life than those with a husband to support them. Where a deliberate decision has been made for someone in Jacinda Arden’s position to not marry the father of her child, questions are asked. The liberal views of so many self-congratulatory but under-informed media are by no means, as so many journalists seem to take for granted, reflected back by the far more conservative country at large. Memories are surfacing of the younger political Ardern, steeped deep in socialist doctrine, choosing to use the word Comrade…as well as of socialists’ contempt for the family unit, regarding marriage contemptuously as a ”bourgeois” practice. But evidence overwhelmingly points to the presence of married parents, a mother and father, as in the best interests of the child.

Labour is very much a minority government, attracting only 37% of the vote.  It cannot claim to have a mandate for some of the ill-thought directions on which it has now embarked, including the foolish clampdown on any further gas and oil exploration – moving into typical ideologically-motivated, deep Green territory.  Disgracefully, vitally important decisions are being made behind the scenes by the coalition’s party hierarchy without even Cabinet involvement!  Buying lock stock and barrel into the now massively discredited global warming theory is costing the country hugely in economic terms. Little wonder there is rising concern about its decision-making.

The media reporting which has so obligingly avoided any of these issues of concern out in the wider community has been interesting.  Long-time journalist Barry Soper describes Clarke Gayford  “as being in the social pages long before he’d ever hooked up with Ardern – “he was a man about town.” It’s a curious, almost Edwardian description, whose meaning is not clear. But it does highlight the fact that Mr Gayford, handed the role of primary caregiver for their child, is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice, very much limiting his career and social activities – as any mother in the same position could tell him. And how demanding a role it will be for Ms Ardern, juggling her initial few weeks away from Parliament while expecting to be in constant touch with what is happening. The question still stands, whether this demanding scenario is likely to be in the best interests of the baby – let alone the mother, in those very early days.

Interesting, too, is Barry Soper’s casual mention of the fact that he texted Ardern, outlining the rumours, suggesting she or her partner should address them, and offering them a media platform to do it. His comment that, “The only reply came from her press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and she wouldn’t be commenting on them” sounded almost miffed – as if he was expecting the Prime Minister to be personally responding to him.

This is an interesting point, because I recall journalist friends taking for granted the fact that they had Prime Minister Helen Clark’s cellphone number and could reach her for direct comment. Reportedly this worked two ways – Clark could leak to chosen media statements she wished to go further. However, whether the preferential, two-way access of selected media to the leader of the country is appropriate is another issue.

This political journalist did make one very valid point when he said that it was a mistake for Police Superintendent Mike Bush to become involved by approving the statement denying that Gayford had been the subject of a police enquiry, and saying he’d never been charged in relation to any matter.  In Soper’s words, “This simply stokes the rumour mill, and opens up the suggestion that the police have become politicised. It is unprecedented for the cops to become involved in what are unsubstantiated rumours. The question’s already been asked: Who requested the Police Commissioner’s involvement?”

Who indeed?

However, it’s over late in the day to wonder whether or not the police have become politicised and partisan in their activities when we have evidence this is already the case. Equally, we have evidence that mainstream media, with now strong liberal Left leanings, are not only highly selective when publishing what takes their fancy, but now routinely suppress letters to the editor from correspondents when the content challenges their thinking – and their bias.

I’m waiting still for a reply from the Press Council – now many weeks overdue, which this august body has not yet even acknowledged receiving – even though it promises receipt of a formal complaint within two days. A follow-up enquiry has also been ignored.  As I am familiar with two or three of the names on this council, I am not holding my breath in expectation of the response to which it is supposedly publicly committed.  However, if my third enquiry continues to be ignored, then it will be time to check to whom the Press Council itself is answerable.

The are serious issues, questions of accountability, and the suppression by the Nelson Mail of the letters below some weeks back – and a follow-up enquiry made to this newspaper – is an important matter  – because the content of these letters involves what Barry Soper is questioning  –  an arguably inappropriate police involvement in a highly politicised situation. Given the Fairfax media’s now quite blatant practice of featuring editorials and opinion pieces which allow no genuine consideration of those radicalised issues of the day which attack family values – and of refusing to publish letters legitimately expressing genuine concern, it is no wonder its newspapers are closing down all over the country.

“Dear Editor  “For the police to publicly favour the “lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex and questioning” movement now becoming confrontational and aggressive is quite shocking. Those warring with the biological fact of being born male are actively targeting and recruiting vulnerable children in schools, while demanding to share women’s and children’s toilets.

“Using the weasel excuse of “discrimination”, children are being prescribed pernicious “sex education” programmes detailing as perfectly acceptable what many consider abnormal – with the word “normal” now ridiculously regarded as “hate speech”.  “

Under the banner of that other weasel word, “diversity”, police marched in the Auckland Pride campaign with rainbow colours on a police car. Individuals’ free choice must always be respected. But Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s partisan policy stance, offering recruitment support, is inappropriate and unacceptable. When have the police ever marched in a parade supporting Christian values, or any other of those core values underpinning our society?

“Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson’s courageous confrontation of this destructive counterculture war, and of the moral relativism now flooding the West, is attracting capacity crowds. Commissioner Bush should reflect on the fact that among the loudest support from Jordan’s young audiences is for his appeal for the sanctity of marriage, and child-rearing.”

Although this letter makes important points –they are not ones which the majority of today’s journalists wish to hear. The Editor of the Nelson Mail is apparently no exception. Churchill’s very important reminder to “Never, ever, ever quit,” is one that too many, deeply concerned about what is happening to New Zealand, seem to have forgotten.  Yet it is the key to winning back this country.

So I wrote again as below…although I by no means support the National Party – nor any political party for that matter, given the accumulative damage they have all caused to this country. Only by working toward what the clever Swiss have achieved, control of our politicians (www.100days.co.nz) so that New Zealanders themselves can make the decisions about our directions ahead, will we be able to mount an effective challenge to being ruled by today’s politburo. However, after a typically unbalanced editorial quite common now for this newspaper, I felt it was not good enough to walk away.  Hence this follow-up.

“Dear Editor

“The Nelson Mail’s increasingly “liberal” editorials apparently take for granted the majority of the community feels the same. For example, you noted the new leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, voted against same-sex marriage and opposes euthanasia. You reported he goes to church and his father was a Baptist Minister  – (are we meant to recoil with horror?) – stating this puts him not only at odds with “the liberal faction”, but “potentially the momentum of popular opinion in this country and around the world”.

”It’s a leap too far. You offer no sound evidence to substantiate such an extravagant claim. Obviously the unpleasant targeting of those concerned about the worrying directions of the day – (particularly families and parents) – deters much feedback. So does the now common, bullying tactic of calling “homophobic” those who question abandoning the values so long stabilising our society.  Many will not agree with the partisan stance inappropriately shown by the police hierarchy marching in the LGBTQIA parade in Auckland – nor with schools now offering programmes which disturb many children, confusing them about their sexual identity.

“Apparently encouraging “diversity” doesn’t extend to supporting genuine debate?  And only extremist groups’ “cultural sensitivity” counts?”

Needless to say, this letter also did not get published.   However, there are  ways around this, and cancelling your support for any Stuff – Fairfax media publication to access local news and correspondence from other sources available  is a very good strategy.

These are increasingly important issues for us all – and what is equally as important is the fact that the police hierarchy felt it appropriate to take a stand which must have made many individual police deeply uncomfortable. It’s time Commissioner Bush was indeed called upon to explain his inappropriate, apparently personal partisanship in relation to an issue causing so much concern to the wider community.

What are our prospects ahead, if we have a corrupt democracy and corrupt media?  As Toby Young points out in a recent Spectator, “a lack of democratic accountability leads to the corruption of the political class”.

What democratic accountability do we have in this country, when, as West Coast MP Damien O’Connor recently stated, the decisions are made by the party hierarchy. Nick Smith also admitted, during the doggedly charming John Key’s tight-fisted control of his party that when the leader says  jump, he asks how high…

MPs are supposed to represent their electorates – nobody believes this any more. MPs now largely do as they’re told. The corruption of the political class is apparently well under way in New Zealand.

While party politics controls the country, instead of New Zealanders themselves  – the achievable way the Swiss have shown us – we’ll continue to pay a huge price for the basic incompetence and sheer ignorance underpinning so much of the decision-making we’ve been inflicted with is recent years. And look what it’s done to this country…

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

 

 

 

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

What, Ms Devoy, do scientist and columnist Dr Bob Brockie, MNZM; conservationist Bud Jones, QSM (recognised for years of faithful service – and with a distinguished career as a professional musician); Neil Hayes, QSM, who was awarded a QSM in recognition of his 34 years of continuous involvement in attempting to save the rare and critically endangered NZ Brown Teal (Anas chlorotis) from extinction – have in common?  Neil is a Royal Chartered Environmentalist . Add in, among other highly regarded New Zealanders, the eminent Bruce Moon, the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand University. The answer? They all have been warning what you should be well aware of, in your position, but apparently aren’t.  Or are you just keeping your head down? Whatever; this just isn’t good enough, and your dogmatic utterances are helping to foster divisiveness and dissent.

In a recent Dominion Post column, Bob Brockie brought to public scrutiny the shockingly racist bias and tribal centre-staging which has wormed its way into what should be completely independent centres of learning in this country. What has long been imposed by neo-Marxist activists within the Ministry of Education, blatantly targeting schoolchildren with their damaging propaganda, has now taken an even stronger foothold within our higher institutes of learning.

Dr Brockie illustrated the fact that what was once Britain’s top scientific organisation, the Royal Society – morphing here into the Royal Society of New Zealand – (which is supposed to foster scientific research and provide independent advice on scientific matters, free of political commercial or cultural bias) – is now doing nothing of the sort. Transferring itself into “an academy” in 2010 it appointed representatives of the humanities to its councils – at which stage the alarm bells should have started to ring…because of course these artistic and literary ” councillors” (from  both the government-funded arts and literary circles)  have long been thoroughly partisan and biased – and very much controlled by the politically correct.

Granting themselves an obscure title in the newly invented, inauthentic and ponderous Maori-speak, these advisers called themselves  Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi,  and brought with them the inevitable baggage load of cultural and political activism from the humanities – the centre of subversive activity within our universities in recent decades.  As Dr Brockie points out,  inheriting the essential madness of the French nihilist philosophers, Derrida, Foucault and their disciples,  these  have long argued that there are no such things as facts – that everybody’s opinions are of equal value – “whether those of a quantum physicist or a Stone Age nobody” . I recall, for example, Oxford’s then Marxist English Professor Terry Eagleton maintaining that the novels of Barbara Cartland equalled in value the works produced by the actor, Shakespeare (or, more likely, the 17th Earl of Oxford – cf. Joseph Sobran’s brilliant and scholarly “Alias Shakespeare” – offering a much-needed intellectual challenge to the sheer laziness of a great part of the regurgitated research offered by university humanities departments in recent decades).

It was primarily our universities, particularly the English and Education departments, abandoning their traditional description as faculties, who so thoroughly embraced the sheer fatuity of political correctness, maintaining that people’s beliefs and opinions are of equal value –   (unless of course, they are Christian, in which case they must be disparaged and ridiculed) – and that “decontextualisation” – the meaning of which defies comprehension  – should rule, in literature, rather than what a great writer actually wrote.

At any rate, the real scandal is that this year, the Te Whainga group, whoever they are and whatever this means, are now claiming that the Royal Society, via its current president, Richard Bedford, ”needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally, and bring alongside that inequity and adversity issues in a holistic manner.” As Bob Brockie points out – this is outrageous. The Treaty,  whose real meaning has been so usefully distorted, reinvented and “reinterpreted” by today’s radical propagandists, assisted by lawyers with their eye to the lucrative work involved, “has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society’s agenda beggars belief.” 

Dr Brockie is right. Moreover, he points to something equally shocking – that Otago University recently proclaimed that the aggressive neo-tribe, Ngai Tahu must be consulted “about all areas of research” before scholars begin their work. “All proposals must be submitted to the office of Maori development”. Staff and students were warned that consultation may take time, so they were advised “to start well in advance of preparing your proposal.” He points out that Otago researchers are looking into everything ” from zeta functions, quantum physics, logistics, dental technology and Roman Law to compositions by Brahms – and rightly asks what expertise Ngai Tahu have in evaluating these research proposals. He also points out that “Ngai Tahu run several commercial companies (with a surplus of many millions annually) and could turn down research that questions or challenges its business motives or motivations.”

Moreover, most of this research is simply not Ngai Tahu’s business. Not only do they have no expertise in judging the value of such research – it is quite appalling that Otago University has acquiesced, as Dr Brockie points out, to such proscriptive, inquisitorial demands”. Shame on my former university.

The time has long gone when universities were once respected as valuable, independent, scholarly institutions operating without fear of bias, even emphasising to their students that their prime value did not lie in facilitating a meal ticket to a future occupation – but in providing the opportunity to research, to explore, to weigh, to learn – in order to advance important discovery, and to aim for the truth of issues. But as Brockie points out “young researchers do not question these moves for fear of being labelled racist and putting their careers at stake.” He is quite right.  What has happened to this country when so many admit they dare not question the highly politicised requirements now dumped on them for fear of losing their jobs?

It’s not only Otago of course, that’s bowing to the pressure of big-money today wielded by the tribes, acquired by compulsion from the taxpayers of this country. The rot is white-anting all our universities. It must be two years ago that a professor friend at Canterbury told me he was warned by an HOD from another department that he had better conjure up some way of touching the forelock towards Ngai Tahu’s imagined” cultural sensitivity” in the courses his department offered – courses having nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues –  because in future any undergraduate hoping to get a degree from Canterbury was going to have to demonstrate that he/she was “culturally sensitive” – whatever this jargon means.

We know of course that this is not intended to be exercised in relation to the values of the majority of our European forebears in this country – but to kowtow towards the radical activism of powerful tribes like the moneyed Ngai Tahu. It is highly doubtful that this virtually bullying activism is even supported by the majority of those of Ngai Tahu descent, apparently largely unaware of what is going on.  On the contrary, it is being pushed by those with their own damaging and egotistical agenda.

What of the findings of these perplexed and imminent New Zealanders, Bud Jones and Neil Hayes, both prominent in their respective fields to the extent of being awarded Queen’s Service Medals? Victoria University, which years ago thoroughly blotted its copybook by refusing to allow the issue of supposed man-made global warming (now conveniently relabelled climate change) to even be debated on its campus is now requiring adherence to this pernicious Vision Matauranga radicalism – i.e. prioritising Maori preferment in utterly irrelevant scientific and academic areas – and requiring staff to explain themselves if they are not doing so! Comparisons with the former totalitarian USSR don’t need to be pointed out.

Described as “racism in the extreme,” as part of this university’s  “2018 learning, teaching, and equity priorities to Te Makuako Aronui” (whatever this, too, means) increased incorporation of Matauranga Maori in courses is required. A senior member of the music department was asked to appear before a panel and explain how he would be incorporating Matauranga Maori into his teaching course subjects –  (“We are talking music department here!…I was pressed into an advisory role… Naturally I reeled at the audacity of an entirely secular university institution making a reprehensible demand on an employee to be a parrot for someone else’s spiritual/religious and racist agenda.  However, on further enquiries it is revealed that many, if not all university departments have the same request in place. i.e.  to incorporate Matauranga Maori into their courses.  The request comes in an ultimate form of  “if not why not” directive.

“I’ve enquired with other former teachers and others: the consensus is: anything implying spiritualism/ religiosity or racism has no place in the university, and probably the University Charter says it explicitly. You cannot comply with this call for racism being incorporated into the school on personal, ethical, and academic grounds. Besides, it is outside your job description to be advocating any spiritual, religious or racial bias into your academic teaching subject. You cannot, nor can you, be a parrot for someone else’s agenda. It is morally reprehensible that the secular academic institution should call on you to do so as well. You {should} decline on academic grounds of integrity!”

What of the recent experience of Bruce Moon?  A retired Canterbury University professorial board member, Bruce has been deeply engaged in studying New Zealand history in his retirement. In his working life Bruce has been a rocket scientist in the UK and Australia. A fellow of the UK Institute of Physics,  a director of the Canterbury University Computer Centre, a national President of the NZ computer Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Institute Information Technology Professionals, an officer in the Naval Reserve, Bruce is the author of “Real Treaty; False Treaty – The True Waitangi Story”.

Needless to say, the Nelson Mail, with its tendency to suppress letters with which the letters editor apparently does not agree, has consistently refused to publish Bruce’s letters  – and even articles – correcting quite wrong “facts” advanced by some of Nelson’s notable activists.  It was not until recently when I at last scratched together the time to make an official complaint to the Press Council about the Nelson Mail’s suppression of, or tampering with,  my own letters, citing Bruce’s experience also, that a recent letter of his has actually been published. The quite blatant bias now exhibited by extraordinarily uninformed or even stroppy agendists throughout our mainstream media echoes a lot of what is also happening overseas.

In relation to what has now become a quite blatant activism within the universities, and spreading throughout all other institutions, I’m reminded of the question I put to the eminent historian Paul Johnson nearly two decades in ago when I was fortunate enough to accompany him while he was visiting this country.  I asked him at the time where the attack upon the universities basically came from – specifically that of the post-modernists and the neo-Marxists (basically the same – i.e.  those working towards the imposing of Communism against the West by cultural domination, and spearheaded by the assault against reason by the same nihilist philosophers – or pseudo-philosophers.  Paul answered that this attack was not mounted against the universities – it originated from within the universities. He was of course right. And I recall an excellent lunchtime lecture he gave in Wellington – and the very hostile reception he got from his largely media and university staff audience.

This former editor of the left-wing The New Statesman abandoned the Left in favour of the free market, but his intellectual honesty is such that he would undoubtedly reject today’s corporate capture of the market – and its distortion  – when the excesses of capitalism without conscience are given rein to run riot.
Today, among those super-wealthy capitalist organisations now doing just this are some of our wealthiest tribes, virtually blackmailing universities and private institutions to prioritise their tribal interests ahead of the common good.

You’re paid by the taxpayers of this country, Susan Devoy. So we would like to know why New Zealand’s Relations Conciliator is apparently turning a blind eye to what is actually happening? Are you really so ignorant, or uninformed that you have no idea what is taking place ?  – of facts which now manage to get at least some, if woefully inadequate coverage in a mainstream media which for too long now has basically ill-served the country. And throwing around unjustified charges of racism, when fine individuals who’ve earned the right to be listened to, and respected,  point out what is really racist – and  are ignored, simply isn’t good enough.

What is basically racist – the form of virtual blackmail by now very wealthy iwi, including, in fact particularly Ngai Tahu – has reached disgraceful proportions. Ironically, on very good evidence, including historian Alan Everton’s excellent research, this largely European-derived tribe should never have got its lucrative 1998 settlement (one of the last of a number of now never-ending power and money grabs by this greedy tribe that lawyer Chris Finlayson wangled for them).  It was a settlement repudiated by highly respected members of the tribe, such as Dame Whetu Tirikatane-Sullivan, pointing out that a previous full and final settlement had been unanimously agreed to. However, the dominating, reportedly only even one-sixteenth Maori, Tipene O’Regan, apparently persuaded Finlayson to represent their new, contrived claim – already previously rejected by a Maori Affairs Select Committee.  Finlayson was viewed as largely instrumental in pushing this claim through.  However, was this instance of what many public perceive as the only too common practice of lawyers competing against each other – rather than prioritizing the justice of a claim?

Finlayson is on record as saying, in a speech in 2009:  “I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown…Ngai Tahu mastered the  art of aggressive litigation. . .  It was ‘Take no prisoners’ and it resulted in a good settlement “. For Ngai Tahu, yes, but what about the truth of their claim?

It would not be appropriate for this lawyer to gloat too much. Later, the Crown lawyers virtually admitted they were a pushover. They had no historians on board – from memory, they admitted their lawyers had background degrees in Geography and French. They not only accepted Ngai Tahu’s word in relation to quite wrong “facts” – they were not allowed to even follow the normal practice of cross-examination. Tipene O’Regan even managed to successfully make the ridiculous claim that confrontation was not the Maori way…

This Ngai Tahu settlement was later described as a swindle – a view many share. The select committee whose job it should have been to scrutinise it was told by the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations at the time, Doug Graham, that their job was to simply basically endorse it, as the original bill had been signed by him and the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger. In other words, it was never subjected to the proper, rigorous scrutiny which should have occurred.

 And unfortunately, also, in the eyes of well informed historians and researchers, the Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson  was subsequently appointed Minister for Treaty Negotiations, and  has been viewed to be far too uncritical of highly fanciful claims submitted for his office to apparently virtually rubber-stamp.  He has apparently been very close to the wily elder Apirana Mahuika, who claimed, when a generous full and final settlement was signed, that it would not be the end of it – that his present generation had no right to hold the next generation to a proceeding agreement. When, as a then Dominion columnist,  I pointed out at the time that in this case he and his fellow claimants, according to this logic, had no right to expect today’s generation to endorse the Treaty of Waitangi, he went off the air…

How sad it is that today’s destructive tribalism is not only opposing the common good: it is sowing dissent throughout this country. Our governments have been very much culpable – both National and Labour have let the country down. And Labour is now marching further ahead downs the same well-trodden path.

That this neo-tribalism is destroying much of what has been best about New Zealand  – where racial discrimination  held so little place that intermarriage was taken for granted  – to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in our relatively short cohabitation – is no longer in doubt. But we never hear a word from you, Susan Devoy, Race Relations Conciliator, about the real reasons for what is going wrong. Your apparent focus on attempting to punish those you consider hold “racist” views is yet another nail in the coffin of the once far healthier democracy we were.

A number of factors are contributing to the growth of separatism and resentment. But basically, rapacious, so-called neo-tribes, with their unhealthy but highly lucrative concentration on grievances dating back two centuries, are responsible – together with the lawyers so obligingly assisting them, helping themselves to a large chunk of the never-ending settlements which were supposed to have reached final closure years ago. Moreover, greed and avarice being what they are, the possibility of squeezing even more millions from New Zealand taxpayers to add to the $50 billion which the Maori economy is now worth, is being milked on what has become a never-ending basis. That ridiculous claims to areas which Maori never owned, including our waterways, plants, and the radio spectrum are not immediately laughed out of court are an indictment on our venal political parties  – and a now perceivedly activist judicial system.

 The facts of the matter – that there given there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country, and  that most with some Maori ancestry do not profit one whit from what the chief executives of these neo-tribes – in fact basically corporate bodies – are contriving for themselves is completely ignored by our constantly vote-buying political parties.  What is also ignored is that none of these settlements benefit any in the past who were genuinely wronged – and that the blame for any such injustices (which certainly by no means affected only Maori) cannot possibly be laid at the feet of any New Zealanders today.

So what has been happening? The answer lies in Malcolm X’s advice to radical activists that  “The squeaky wheel gets the most grease…”  advice the controversial  Titewhai Harawira gave to her followers.  Mrs  Harawira, like so many activist part- Maori,  who have apparently been intent on passing on a sense of grievance to the next generation – without ever acknowledging the very tangible benefits that colonisation brought to Maori –   has apparently never come to terms with the simple fact that, as Bruce Moon reminds us, the Treaty of Waitangi – Te Tiriti o Waitangi  was basically a simple document which said in essence  that the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever to the Queen,  and that all Maoris (including the many slaves) received the rights of the people of England. The extraordinary and quite wrong statement by the President of the Royal Society, Richard Bedford, to the effect that researchers have special responsibilities under the treaty is quite wrong, as is his reference, to Aotearoa New Zealand – a name which does not occur in any reference to New Zealand in Te Tiriti – but which is now being heavily promoted by radical activists as a substitute for this country’s correct name.

A clue to what underpins this ongoing push for separatism and indeed for special privileges – is found in a recent interview given by the radicalised Mrs Titewhai Harawira, mother of the stroppy former MP Hone Harawira.  “They talk about how Māori have special privileges. But we don’t have any special privileges. We are tangata whenua and we have a treaty that says we have a right to these taonga. And the Pākehā have a right to look after their own people. Not to rule over us.”

She’s wrong, of course. Sovereignty was ceded to the Crown. And it’s interesting how the original meaning of the words such as taonga has been exaggerated beyond recognition. Taonga applied only to material possessions – including land, to which stable possession and legal title was never held by Maori – until the coming of British Law establishing this. Similarly, the much invoked claim to be tangata whenua is quite wrong. Mrs Harawira’s ancestors made known to our early historians that the term referred to the people they knew had been here before them – a term translated variously as the first people – or the people of the land.

An interesting observation by Andy Oakley, author of the well researched ….”Once We Were One – The Fraud of Modern Separatism” (Tross Publishing) is that “I am finding more and more in my debates with Maori separatists that they accept there is noting in Te Tiriti that gives them any special rights, and the elevation of one race over all others may not be fair. However, what they now tend to say is:  it does not matter how I (me) or Pakeha feel about the situation: the courts have made their decisions and central and local governments are enacting these decisions by giving Maori separate and  superior rights… Get used to it.”

The country is not going to get used to it. The inevitable backlash is already under way.  So is the growing questioning about the qualifications – or lack of them – that our Race Relations Conciliator brings to bear on her highly controversial role. People are asking why she was ever appointed.

Postscript. The talk scheduled to be given at the Nelson library by historian Bruce Moon, at the invitation of the Nelson Institute,  has been called off. Apparently, representatives of the Nelson City Council, library officials, and two members of the Nelson Institute met, as all three groups have been contacted by persons saying he should not be allowed to talk on this topic.

Allowed? The you-can’t-say-that bullying and intimidation now being exercised on campuses overseas, by those too apparently mentally and emotionally fragile to be able to tolerate genuine debate, is well under way in this country. More than one other historian is reporting similar incidents.

Moon’s talk, “Twisting the treaty and other fake history” was specifically designed to be non-political – the findings of a scientist turned historian – rather than, one would expect (from his extremely well-informed writing in these areas) that of those government-endorsed, PC historians who have lent too willing and too uncritical an ear to the self-serving propaganda too often advanced by some of today’s manipulative tribal corporations.

This disgraceful and successful attempt to shut down well-informed commentators has been well under way overseas…It has now come here. Copy-cat objections to the scheduled talk were represented under the guise of concern about it disturbing the peace and becoming a Health and Safety issue. Reportedly, the individuals who thought up this underhand way of preventing actual facts being presented concerning the distortion of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi are well known to the Council and library staff.

They need to be publicly identified, rather than sheltering under the convenient umbrella of anonymity. Nelson Institute, the Council and library  have all shamefully buckled under. If a legitimate case could indeed be made for it being a Health and Safety issue then the implying of possible violence means that this whole matter should now be reported to the police. But who’s holding their breath?

The only effective opposition to this virtual bullying by those anxious to hijack our democratic institutions can be mounted by individuals.

We have forgotten the power on one….Each one of your and my individual objections to this new totalitarianism is the strongest blow against this push for tribal preferment, and power. It is intent on contriving a virtual apartheid , and the supremacy of unrepresentative, minority power seekers working to undermine this country. Our real concern must be those who, as Edmund Burke pointed out, do absolutely nothing to help save the day…

Do you?  If so, we all owe a debt to you. Thank you!

If not? Join us – and tell others – till the knowledge of what is actually happening reaches right around the country.  

*

©  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 my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

For Best Practice Democracy – read The Spectator – below.

Losing our democracy….

For why we ourselves, individual New Zealanders, need to claim back our country from our now thoroughly unrepresentative politicians, read further  – below the link to my recent Spectator Australia published article, Best Practice Democracy.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/best-practice-democracy/

For example, what has happened to us in recent decades when a new South African arrival expresses shock at finding what is basically another form of apartheid now being deliberately promoted in this country? Reportedly, he not surprisingly hoped he had left all this behind… and couldn’t believe it is happening here.

What’s more, this reverse apartheid is being deliberately backed by our political parties, jostling for self advantage… And it is going to get worse – with the extremist push for separate, thoroughly undemocratic constitutional “rights” for any of part -Maori descent. But why?

Labour, under its new, activist leader,  Jacinda Ardern, shows every sign or leading us even further down this racist path, although to date, National has been even worse than Labour in this respect. During its recent period of dominance, the markedly racist Vision Matauranga was supported. A marked form of prioritising Maori-related outcomes, government-backed, it requires not only our universities, but our private institutions to provide, in research grant applications, preferential outcomes for those of part-Maori descent over all other individuals. More on this in future, as this insidious requirement has now crept into other institutions bearing no relevance whatever to any particular ethnic group.

For the moment: one outstanding example is that scientists who apply for all government grants for research purposes from the Ministry of Research and Innovation – (funded by all taxpayers) – now have to state how it will first supposedly serve Maori interests – and if not – they have to explain why. Note the comment below from one scientist – and scores of others will be thinking the same.

“Government is now requiring *all* applications for research funding from Ministry of Business & Innovation (MBIE) to consider Vision Mātauranga nonsense.  Previously, one was able to tick a box to say one’s research didn’t have such relevance – now, chillingly, one must ‘provide evidence if you think Vision Mātauranga isn’t relevant’  (the twisted logic of this requirement is so outrageous that it almost sounds as if it could be challenged, legally).

“May be a sufficiently palatable way round this kind of thing, but certainly puts me off wanting to be involved in any kind of proposal at all.  And to get a job away from research!”

Hands up those who think that Susan Devoy, if this were brought to her attention, would strenuously object on behalf of all New Zealanders at such specific racist demands?

Hmm.

Incidentally,  with a Maori economy of now $50 billion, the very wealthy iwi – thanks to the never-ending raiding of taxpayers’ pockets -could  well afford to fund their own research – prioritising specific Maori-interest outcomes…

*

© 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.

 

 

Susan Devoy, this won’t do. High time she resigned?

Susan Devoy – this won’t do. High time she resigned?

Sociopolitical commentator Lindsay Perigo has recently made some very timely points about the attack on free speech in New Zealand. And it’s getting worse.

Many now regard Susan Devoy as contributing to this, seemingly very much out of her depth with regard to comprehending what her constant stirring of the supposed  “hate speech” pot is leading to.

Devoy’s  credentials for ever being appointed to her position as Race Relations Conciliator in the first place are a mystery,  and she is now understandably regarded by many as very much unsuitable for the position she holds.

Far from being  seen as an objective, properly neutral government employee, she is perceived by concerned New Zealanders as very much lacking judgment. Her school-marmish, disapproving attitude towards those concerned at the divisiveness now caused by the promotion of what is  increasingly seen as a radicalised, Maori supremacy movement in this country – which many, far from extreme part-Maori individuals also object to – is unreasonable.

For example, her statement below is completely unacceptable to all concerned with fair and balanced debate – and is basically quite shocking! *

She also seems  ignorant of the fact that the ongoing attempt to actually replace New Zealand as the name of our country with “Aotearoa” – never even historically justified – is  very much part of the power push by the radicalized Left.

* “Anyone  who complains about te reo Māori being used and celebrated in this country needs to get one thing straight: this is New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand – so get used to it,” Devoy said.

Susan – this sort of intemperate, even bullying statement will not do. Time indeed to step down…

As Lindsay Perigo has pointed out, Devoy, “—who dismisses anything she disapproves of as “stale, male and white” (hate speech?!)—is campaigning to make existing legislation more draconian. Not for her, “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Are we coming closer to, rather, “I disagree with what you say and will have you thrown in jail for it”? In her own words:

“I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out. I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums, comments sections on some media outlet websites as well as their social media accounts. I am keen to see our Police begin to gather hate crime statistics – at the present time this is not something they collate when responding to call outs.”

So much for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights legislation stating:

Article 19. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

For Susan Devoy to be in essence seeking to undermine this right under the umbrella excuse of the recently invented “hate crimes” is totally unacceptable.

Is it high time to remind ourselves that our forebears fought against this sort of creeping, virtual totalitarianism that  eventuates when any government, through its representatives and officials, starts on the path of laying down what we can or cannot say…

And what about the famous reminder that “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom…”

What freedom?

Amy Brooke