Orange handcuffs??

I’ve been reading so many false stories about me lately, I feel like I’ve become a whole new fantasy genre.

The latest piece of make-believe was in today’s Herald on Sunday.

Seems I was keen to use a pair of orange handcuffs as the key image for a new party.

They even put a photo of the said cuffs in the article to lend credence to the story.

Now, on the defamation scale, it wasn’t up there with the comment on TradeMe alleging I was one of the leaders of a redneck brigade that inspired nice Mr Brievik. 

I’m hunting that allegator down as we speak, along with one or two others.

But handcuffs?

What sort of party would use handcuffs as a logo? The Sensible Sentencing Party? The Bondage and Discipline Party? The Dunedin branch of the Labour Party? The Mangere Branch of the Labour Party?

No folks, this was a clear case of Chinese Whispers.

And to the person on Muriel Newman’s message board who says I leaked the story to the Herald, I most certainly did not. And I don’t know who did.

But it so happens that I do have a new political brand that I’ve been planning to launch for some time. 

In the next few days, I’ll show it to you. What happens to it after that will be up to you.

Published in: on July 31, 2011 at 9:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

COMING SOON: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Treaty but were too terrified of being labelled a racist to ask

I’m getting so much stuff sent to me about the Maorification of Everything scandal that I need a whole office of scribes to sort it.

(I’m just such a slow writer. Slow but sure, I trust.)

One of the things I’ve been sent is a brilliant little book.

It’s going to allow me to boil down the whole early Treaty history into a form that’ll make it crystal clear just how royally the Crown and Maoristocracy have been conning us.

I’m going to need your help to pass on these vital facts to everyone you know. 

I don’t want you to miss this post, which will be coming after I’ve finished exposing the biased membership of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Therefore, why don’t you subscribe to this blog? That’ll save you having to check back all the time.

Published in: on July 31, 2011 at 10:45 am  Comments (3)  

Historian Bassett also called Waitangi Tribunal biased

Another historical rebuff for the impartiality of the Waitangi Tribunal from the academically rigorous Michael Bassett:

Historian Michael Bassett has told the Waitangi Tribunal he does not want to be reappointed.

Dr Bassett has been a tribunal member for 10 years and his existing three-year appointment expires at the end of this month.

Now this again was from 2004. But has the Tribunal changed?

I’ll soon be posting on the balance of the current membership, which is supposed to be a fair mix of Maori and Pakeha. It’s anything but.

In fact, it’s a miracle Michael was ever allowed on in the first place.

The former Labour Cabinet Minister has regularly criticised the tribunal, accusing his fellow members of bias.

His most recent criticisms were of the tribunal’s Tauranga report, in which he recorded a minority view.

In a subsequent newspaper column he accused his fellow members of “inventive arguments” and said it was time to “review the tribunal’s usefulness”.

Thanks to Lindsay Mitchell for alerting me to this. Stay tuned for my analysis of the present Waitangi Tribunal. 

Published in: on July 31, 2011 at 10:24 am  Leave a Comment  

Dan should’ve gone for the drop!

The end of last night’s test against the pretend-Springboks was a case of deja vu all over again.

The dreaded 2007 quarter-final against France, I mean.

Did you notice?

80th minute. Scrum inside the Springboks 22. Right in front. All Blacks put-in.

Try or drop goal?

Answer: both, actually. They should have tried for a drop goal.

It would have been the perfect chance for Dan Carter to test his drop kicking in a live test pressure situation, as he’s apparently been doing in practice. Maybe one of his last before the World Cup.

(Dan may have a record 1200 test points, but only 6 of those have come from drop goals.)

And of course, it was the ABs’ failure to go for the three pointer when down by two against France in 2007 that made us fans despair about the state of our boys’ top two inches.

Last night’s failure to do the same was not exactly reassuring.

Now I know what you’re thinking. What pressure? Last night they were up 40-7. Not down 18-20. What difference would another 3 make? 

Well, a bit, actually. In fact, it would have made history. If they’d known their history.

You see, the record winning margin in the 90 years of tests between the two countries is 36 points. (NZ 52, SA 16 in 2003.)

And 40-7 is a margin of 33 points.

See what I mean?

If the All Blacks staff had studied their history — and going into a test against the weakest Springboks team in history they should have — they could have used the goal of matching the record to simulate the pressure of a tight World Cup match.

But no. They did what they did in 2007. They tried for a try. And failed. 

It doesn’t augur well for what they might do in a tight final in November.

Am I being too grumpy after such a massive win?

Probably. It’s late.

But Aussie next week will be a whole nother story.

UPDATE: It’s now next week, and Dan’s just dropped a goal! — his first in five years. Good to know he can take expert advice.

Published in: on July 31, 2011 at 2:36 am  Comments (2)  

Vic historian damns Waitangi Tribunal bias

   

Dr John Robinson is far from the only academic to voice alarm at the Treaty brownwashing scam. 

This from the Herald archives about historian Dr Giselle Byrnes’ experience with the Waitangi Tribunal.

(Note: the paragraphs below are cherry-picked for easy digestion, not all consecutive.)

The tribunal – one of New Zealand’s more controversial institutions – has become a nursery for the rewriting of New Zealand’s history.

It seems a laudable enterprise. But questions are emerging about the academic validity of the history the tribunal is producing.

In a new book, The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment”.

The tribunal, she says, is not writing “objective history”. Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present. It commits the ultimate faux pas of judging the past by the standards of the present.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians – including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver – have raised similar concerns.

Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says.

“I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

“This is an area of energy and activity that is exposing a huge amount about our history. We need to pay it serious attention because the tribunal is publishing these historical narratives and people are buying these books thinking they are truthful accounts.”

Dr Byrnes … believes the tribunal should make overtly clear its inherent bias, otherwise there is a danger that lay people reading tribunal reports will be misled.

“If you don’t read the reports alongside the legislation it does look like it’s very biased history.”

 Her experience sounds eerily similar to that of sceptical climate scientists.

Now this was from 2004. But if you think the Treaty brownwashing process has become more balanced in recent years, stay tuned.

Thanks for this article to Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation.

Help me sue for defamation and I’ll give you 10%

I’m getting a lot of emails about commenters on TradeMe and elsewhere saying grossly defamatory things about me.

I have no problem with people quoting me accurately, mocking me, or calling me names in the robust spirit of political debate.

But when they call me a racist, a Nazi, a white supremacist, or leader of a redneck brigade, that’s a bridge too far.

(I assure you my semi-skinheaded appearance was not my doing. It was God’s punishment for walking out on the Church of England at the age of 11 :-)

For the record, I’m just someone who believes in the right to tell the truth as I see it.

Some of the truths I see and want to tell concern the uncomfortable area of race relations. (Believe it or not, it’s far from my only interest.)

But a lot of people are squeamish about the race issue. They’d sooner appease the real racists and give away their country than risk being branded with the R-word.

Of course, that’s just what the Maorification industry wants them to do: shrink back into their shells like a snail at the first brush with danger.

That’s cowardice. But it’s a clever trick, and it’s been working a treat. It’s allowed a whole grievance industry to flourish, founded on lies, free from public scrutiny.

And of course those brown and white conmen who are sitting pretty on their ill-gotten gains (screwed from the pockets of you and me) are none too happy that we’re about to blow the coop on the whole rort.

So I expect to be hit hard. But not lied about. 

Thus I intend to sue anyone who defames me.

Want to help? 

If you can identify my defamers, and I successfully sue them, I’m happy to give you 10% of my profit.

(A large chunk of any settlement will obviously go to my lawyer, as I can only afford to pay him on a no-win, no-fee basis.)

But rest assured, any case I take I’m highly likely to win.

Why? Because my lawyer has been recommended by a man who apparently holds the world record for successful libel cases.

OK, so the deal is this…

The first person to email me on john@johnansell.co.nz with the name of someone who has defamed me, the comment they’ve made, where and when they’ve made it, and preferably details of their whereabouts, will qualify for 10% of any settlement I receive — in or out of court — after the payment of my lawyer.

Note: Please do not assume that I will necessarily take a case against that person. That would depend on discussions with my lawyer. He’d need to be confident of winning a reasonable sum to justify taking the case on a result-only basis.

I look forward to your emails.

Oh and I should add: if your information is helpful, but doesn’t go the whole hog in nailing the defamer, I’m still likely to want to reward you in some way. You’ll just have to trust me on that.

John

Published in: on July 30, 2011 at 1:21 pm  Comments (28)  

How to make The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy a best seller

Just had a coffee with John McLean, the publisher of Dr John Robinson’ s superb 118 page paperback The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview.

We need to make this a best seller and really embarrass the corrupt conmen who’ve been selling New Zealand down the river with their relentless Maorification of Everything.

Here’s how:

  • Get all your family and friends (hell, even your enemies) to send a cheque for $20 (includes postage) to: Tross Publishing, P.O. Box 22 143, Khandallah, Wellington 6441

OR

  • Get them to direct credit $20 to Tross Publishing at Westpac, Wellington, Account No. 03-0584-0210107-00, then email your postal address to trosspub@gmail.com 

OR

  • Get them to take their $20 to Unity Books in Auckland, Wright’s Bookshop in Cambridge, Take Note in Paeroa, Muirs in Gisborne, Benny’s Books in New Plymouth, Paper Plus Ocean Boulevard in Napier, Paper Plus in Thames, Wanganui, Upper Hutt or Greymouth, Hedley’s in Masterton, Bruce McKenzie Booksellers in Palmerston North, Capital Books, Parsons Books or Vicbooks in Wellington, Blenheim Bookworld, Page and Blackmore in Nelson, or University Bookshop in Dunedin.

OR

  • Buy several copies yourself and give them to your family/friends/enemies. (Or school, as reader Murray sneakily suggests. Good luck with that one!)

I’ll be blogging choice quotes from this and other books on the subject regularly.

I’m getting a big spike in visitor numbers. The snowball is rolling! 

The DomPost would have us believe the Maorification of Everything is not an election issue. Help me prove these censors who banned the ACT ad wrong.

Published in: on July 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm  Comments (10)  

HOW LEFTIES LIE: Now I’m an inspiration for Norwegian terrorism!

This morning on a Trademe discussion, someone called mikey853nz wrote: 

John Ansell.. one of the leaders of NZ’s redneck brigade that inspired Norway’s mass killing.

Well well, wonders never cease.

I’m guessing he’s extrapolated his fantasy from this story about the gunman Brievik praising a speech by the editor of Quadrant about the Western media bias against the West.

(A bias that no honest commentator can deny.)

That speech was given by Keith Windschuttle at Amy Brooke’s Summer Sounds Symposium in 2006.

I attended the same symposium, not in 2006, but in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

And from that flimsy connection, mikey365nz has constructed the following set of beliefs:

  1. That Keith Windschuttle’s comments were racist. (They weren’t.)
  2. That I’m in league with Keith Windschuttle. (We’ve never met.)
  3. That we’re both in league with Anders Brievik. (Windschuttle has deplored his actions, as do I.)

I can’t seem to get access to the TradeMe discussion, so if mikey365nz is reading this:

Mikey, I challenge you to come out of hiding and meet me for a coffee and a chat.

We can discuss your intriguing theory that I’m leading a redneck support group for Norwegian nationalism. (And am no doubt anti-Maori as well.)

I’ll tell you what I am, Mikey…

I’m determined that New Zealanders should reclaim the right to tell the truth.

After decades of socialism, tribalism, eco-exaggerationism and overweaning feminism, lying has become the norm here.

That’s wrong. It’s not OK.

But it is OK to tell the truth. And if we want to tell the truth bluntly, that’s OK too. Sometimes talking bluntly is the only way to get heard. 

A few weeks ago, I wrote an ad for ACT. It contained no fewer than 40 true statements. And not one false one.

Yet the Dominion Post refused to run that ad. They refused to let their readers read the views of one of the parties contesting this year’s election.

That may be legal. But it’s not OK.

Afterwards, when the Herald rang wanting to know why the DomPost were playing censor (I didn’t know and still don’t – they never said), I made some other equally true statements.

One of these was that Maori had gone from the Stone Age to the Space Age in 150 years, and had never said thanks.

That was a true statement. It was a fair statement. No native race in the world has done so well from colonisation. Can you name one? 

Consider Maori life expectancy today compared with that of the tribesmen of New Guinea, or Africa, or the Amazon jungle.

Maori had no chance of doing that on their own. They hadn’t even invented the wheel in 1840. Or writing. Or shoes. 

Rather than view the British as the source of all their problems, Maori should reflect on how the Brits saved their ancestors from certain death at the hands of the most brutal people on earth.

Namely, other Maori.

Maori were the world champions of ethnic cleansing. They made the Tutsi-butchers of Rwanda look like conscientious objectors.

With the aid of the white man’s musket, they’d wiped out about half of their own race in the 1820s and 30s, and were on track to blast and tomahawk themselves to extinction in the 40s and 50s.

(Of course, the British also saved them from an even worse fate: having to live with the French :-) )

For stating these truths and not varnishing them with the customary euphemism and gobbledygook, I’ve been the subject of a number of insults and bizarre slurs.

Yours is nowhere near the most insulting, but certainly the most bizarre — not to mention defamatory.

Yet for all the heat guys like you have directed my way, none of you has managed to identify a single statement I made that was false.

That’s what I mean about the right to tell the truth, Mikey.

Why did the newspaper of our capital city feel the need to protect its readers from the true statements of a political party?

What does that say about the state of our democracy?

What does it say about our freedom of speech?

Just this morning, I was contacted by a leading conservative.  A thoughtful and courageous man, who used to be an MP.

He wants me to tone down my comments. Better, he says, that I refer to ‘racialisation’ rather than ‘Maorification’.

But I’m not going to do that. Because Maorification is what it is.

No other race has its hand out for my money.

No other race is being endlessly indulged by greedy, selfish, treacherous governments.

No other race has been waging an emotional blackmail campaign to try to make me feel guilty about what my ancestors did to theirs.

And no other race is telling lies about those events to extort more money.

So I’m sticking with Maorification. It’s the perfect word to describe what’s going on.

Does that mean I hate Maori? No, it does not. Why should it? 

Does that mean some Maori will feel hurt by that word? Sadly, yes, it probably does. Believe it or not, I have Maori friends, and I don’t like the thought of hurting their feelings.

But does that mean I should not use the word? No.

The sad fact is, Maori and non-Maori have been brought up on a diet of lies. And it’s time they learned the truth.

That truth may hurt at first — learning that the basis for one’s victimhood may not be true would no doubt be upsetting.

But there’s a higher value than not upsetting people who’ve been living a lie.

And that’s telling the truth.

So Mikey, I say it’s high time we had the debate. It’s just not been possible to have it before.

Why? Because all the white make-believe Maoris who collaborate with the cunning tribal elite to tell lies about the Treaty have been keeping the truth from us.

For decades.

But truth will out, as they say.

By the time I’ve finished telling the whole truth of what’s been going on, those people are going to have nowhere to hide.

All the big, fancy words in Christendom won’t save them from the hammering they’re about to cop from the public.

The snowball has started to roll, Mikey, and nothing’s going to stop it. Whether I tell them or someone else does, people are about to learn the extent to which they’ve been conned.

So what about it — fancy a coffee?

I’d really like to get to know the person I plan to sue.

Published in: on July 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm  Comments (7)  

TREATY CORRUPTION CONFESSION: researcher forced to rewrite report to fit official anti-Pakeha myth

On Tuesday evening I witnessed an extraordinary confession.

It was at the launch of Dr John Robinson’s explosive new book Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview.

This book is a smoking musket that exposes how the New Zealand state is prepared to lie in order to con the public into believing that its Treaty guilt trip is real and the grievance gravy train justified.

Author Dr John Robinson, a socialist, confessed that, much to his shame, he once caved in to an ultimatum by his state agency clients to doctor his findings on the cause of Maori 19th century depopulation to fit the government’s politically-correct pro-Maori, anti-Pakeha, Brit-bashing myth.

If he did not comply, he would not be paid for his work.

If you’re pressed for time or hungry for the meat, zoom down to the paragraph just below the graph. 

Otherwise, let me tell you a bit about the author…

Dr John Robinson is no ordinary doctor. He earned his doctorate at MIT. (The one in Massachusetts, not Manakau.)

He’s got two Master of Science degrees – in mathematics and physics.

He’s lectured at several universities.

As an interdisciplinary research scientist, he’s penned reports for all manner of respected, if acronymically-challenged, outfits, from the DSIR and OECD to the UNEP, UNU and UNESCO.

He’s researched and written books and papers on social science, energy, agriculture, business, transport, capital, the future, and the history of Wellington’s south coast.

He’s become a sought-after expert on Maori history, most recently writing a book on the Battles of Tapu Te Ranga (the island in Island Bay).

Lest you suspect his European ancestry may prejudice him against Maori, the book is full of evidence that Dr Robinson is a committed lefty, with a history of what the Left smugly call ‘heart politics’.

An example:

As a student in Boston and a lecturer in Rhode Island I travelled to Washington to join in a massive civil rights demonstration… Back in New Zealand I joined in the struggle for equal pay for women.

Not the sort of backstory that suggests racism, I think you’ll agree.

In fact, he seems to me to be a dangerous apologist for Maori gangs, perhaps even worthy of Lenin’s ‘useful idiot’ tag, coined for those who cuddle up to evil in the vain hope of reforming it:

When in the 1980s I interviewed the leader of Black Power in Auckland, he described how they were working to keep their children from a similar way of life, by building a thriving set of businesses to provide useful employment.

I believe the current equivalents are called P labs, John.

The gang problem runs deep, and has been created by successive governments, which … have so demonised these groups of young people that they have increasingly turned to antisocial and criminal activities.

The poor wee things — victims of demonic democrats. Yeah right.

Anyone who believes bureaucrats and MPs are the root cause of these ‘young people’ becoming thugs and drug dealers is asking to be called all sorts of things. But anti-Maori surely isn’t one of them.

Yet this thug-hugging liberal does not mince words when describing life in pre-colonial Aotearoa:

Maori culture was not just dysfunctional but mad, criminally insane.

The consequences of those decades of killing, social disruption, destruction of crops, infanticide, fear and uncertainty was a society in shock.

There was widespread desolation and devastation among Maori communities.

I say it again: this was before 1840, not after 1984.

(Though the author also has much to say about the effect of what he calls ‘voodoo economics’ on Maori in recent times.)

But back to the good doctor’s CV.

Dr Robinson has been hired to research and report on matters Maori by the following:

  • the Faculty of Business Studies at Massey University
  • the Royal Commission on Social Policy
  • the Ministry of Maori Affairs
  • Te Puni Kokiri
  • the Wellington South Coast Historical Society
  • the Treaty of Waitangi Unit at the Department of Justice
  • the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit at Victoria University
  • the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.

And it’s the last of these organisations that he’s referring to when he says:

I was ordered to emphasise a catastrophic social experience that was contrary to the data.

The Crown Forestry Rental Trust was the funder. The client was the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit at Victoria University.

Dr Robinson picks up the story (extra paragraph spacing by me for ease of reading):

Considerable sums are spent on employing academics and researchers to write reports supporting claims before the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Crown Foresty Rental Trust assists Maori to prepare, present and negotiate claims against the Crown, including funding research that is required to support the claimant’s argument.

Total assistance from the Trust to claimants in 2010 was $34.5 million. This is seriously big money and has a considerable impact on the direction of research into Maori history…

…Such directed efforts have a decided effect on the development and viability of university departments, and on the vision of the past that is told to the public and taught at schools and universities.

The subsequent emphasis then influences political debate and the direction of common law in New Zealand

I have worked in that industry.

In 2000 I analysed Maori demographic and land information for the northern South Island.

The data told a simple story. There was no correlation between land holdings and demography.

In other words, contrary to what his state paymasters wanted him to pretend, the decline in Maori population in the late 1800s was not caused by Maori losing their land.

Neither, surprisingly, did introduced European diseases have a lot to do with it.

There is no evidence that disease was a main cause of that decline, although it no doubt contributed.

By far the major cause, says Dr Robinson, was the lack of breeding stock caused by the slaughter of tens of thousands of young Maori males in the Musket Wars of the 1820s and 30s.

So Tariana Turia was right: there was a holocaust in New Zealand. It wiped out around half the population. Its perpetrators made the Rwandan Tutsi-butchers look like conscientious objectors.

But those perpetrators were Maori, not Pakeha.

An interesting and tragic irony was that even after this worldbeating orgy of ethnic cleansing, the male population still outnumbered the female. How could this be?

Seems it was also the custom of Maori to slaughter their daughters — for meat.

They stopped when they found the settlers valued their daughters more highly than they did – as prostitutes. Maori adapted quickly to commerce.

Graph: John Robinson. Red captions: John Ansell.

But this next bit is what really made me sit up…

My report was emphatically rejected by the Crown Forestry Trust. They claimed that it would obscure the true nature of the supposed “cataclysm” which afflicted Te Tau iwi between 1850 and 1900.

However, the data showed that there had been no such cataclysm. In fact, a demographic recovery was evident…

…But before I was paid, I was required to rewrite my report, to argue a deleterious impact from land loss during that period; that message had to be written in.

Extraordinary. Not so much that state standover tactics occur. (I’m told it’s rampant.) But that Dr Robinson has been brave enough to admit his reluctant compliance, on the record, in print.

Needless to say, I am not proud of that work, when I adapted the analysis away from the facts to fit the client’s requirements.

I hope you’re proud of yourself now, Dr Robinson. Because your revelation will, like the Climategate emails, change the way we view our supposedly non-corrupt state.

Significantly, I was not instructed to look further at what the numbers had to say. I continue now with the analysis that would have been followed by anyone free to search for the truth.

And he goes on to detail not just the true cause of Maori depopulation, but a catalogue of the corruption of language, education, politics and the law by the relentless Maorification movement.

And that movement most certainly includes the present Key/Finlayson regime. I’ll be telling you much more about them in upcoming posts.

As a plain English crusader, I particularly appreciate Dr Robinson’s exposé of the state’s deliberate, reprehensible misuse of language:

a lack of clarity and unbiased research has hindered the development of suitable and adequate policy, and continues across what remains of science in current New Zealand.

(And not just New Zealand, if recent climate science skullduggery is any guide.)

I found this sentence about Chris Finlayson’s deliberate obfuscation particularly chilling:

The National-Maori government has rewritten the foreshore and seabed legislation. I wish to be thorough and so tried to understand the text. I failed.

Now bear in mind this is no high school dropout scratching his empty head over the muddle-headed meanderings of some cardigan-clad clerk.

This is a doctor from MIT speaking about legislation crafted by the supposedly Honourable Christopher Finlayson MP, an avowed champion of plain English law.

(So much so that he compered the last Writemark Plain English Awards. I know — I recommended him for the job. I was friends with him. I used to believe he cared about New Zealand, not just Aotearoa. I was wrong.)

So how is it that in Finlayson’s law, according to Dr Robinson:

key words have many meanings and the operative meanings will be defined later by claimants.

That’s right, folks, by claimants. How sneaky is that?

It shows that Finlayson is every bit as naive or as biased (almost certainly the latter) as that other notable white Maori separatist, Doug Graham.

Dr Robinson cites what Graham had to say about legal linguistic precision in his day:

Treaty legislation has long been deliberately unclear. Former Treaty Minister Doug Graham stated in 1997 that this lack of clarity was no accident or inadvertence on the part of Parliament. Parliament has handed over the task of writing law to the courts.

And so it remains fourteen years later. The judges make our laws, and entrench the Maorification of Everything.

To allow them to do so, the Activist-General, formerly known as the Attorney-General, creates the foggiest legislation he can get away with.

He does this so his fellow-activist judicial mates can have free reign when called upon to clarify the confusion.

We’re being conned by a confusion conspiracy, and it’s time it was blown wide open.

Dr Robinson sums up our predicament well:

Modern society is founded on the concept of equality before the law. That principle has been established through centuries of struggle. It is stated in Article 3 of the Treaty and brought freedom to Maori slaves after 1840.

He reminds us that the British did not just end British slavery in 1833. They also ended Maori slavery in 1840.

The advent of law and order also put an end to centuries of Maori cannibalism and decades of utu-based slaughter.

The Jews may have invented the saying ’an eye for an eye’. But it took Maori chiefs — or should that be chefs? — to make it a culinary reality.

When a tribe had shot and hacked its way to victory over its neighbour, the triumphant chief would go cannibalistic. And it was his rival’s eyes that were the first items on the menu. 

But back to the book.

Final word to Dr Robinson:

But New Zealand is spinning wildly away from equality to race-based privilege and separate development. That terrible evolution must stop.

The book is called The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview by John Robinson. It’s only $20 and you can read it in an evening.

Once you’ve read it, you’ll never believe the government spin on the Treaty and Maorification again.

My apologies for not getting this post done by yesterday, as I intended. Needed the time to get it right.

Coming soon: Researcher forced to doctor facts to support state Treaty lie

My next post tomorrow (Wednesday) will blow you away. Concrete proof of government corruption aboard the grievance gravy train.

Read it here tomorrow afternoon or evening.

Published in: on July 27, 2011 at 12:08 am  Comments (1)  

Commander Key’s Voyage to the Bottom of the OECD

This graph on Roger Kerr’s blog is just one recent example of New Zealand reaching the bottom of the OECD.

And what has John Key done about his country having the worst youth unemployment rate in the developed world?

Why, he’s decided to make the problem even worse.

He’s refused to do the one thing that would make it easier for young Kiwis to get a foot on the job ladder.

He’s refused to bring back the youth minimum wage.

This would have allowed thousands of employers to take a chance on an inexperienced, less reliable teen. 

It would have allowed those wealth- and job-creators to pay that kid, say $10 an hour – instead of the $13.50 they’d have to pay an adult.

(Which would be fair enough, given that the kid is likely to come out of our dumbed-down school system with only a basic grasp of spelling, grammar and punctuation, an ‘attitude’ from a decade of pampering, and a none-too-flash work ethic.)

More importantly, it would have allowed that young man or woman to earn $10 an hour — not a bad wage compared with the $4.50 they’d otherwise pocket for the dole.

And of course, he or she would learn valuable life skills, like getting out of bed, being accountable, and providing a useful service to others.

But no. Mr Key would rather the cream of our youth stayed home on the couch watching daytime TV.

Or doing drugs. Or going out and joining a gang. Or having babies and going on the DPB.

As well as youth unemployment, we’re also the worst for youth suicide and cannabis use, have the fourth worst youth death rate, and the seventh worst teen birth rate.

Our child abuse rates remain shocking, and our abuse of women likewise.

In fact, we’re in the bottom half of the OECD for just about everything. This reflects our long line of incompetent leaders, from Holyoake and Muldoon to Clark and Key.

Our leaders are failing our people. And it’s not OK.

Pass it on.

Published in: on July 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm  Comments (3)  

Lindsay Mitchell pays for truth crimes

[DSC01315.JPG]Lindsay Mitchell and family have been getting a hard time from anonymous abusers.

Sometimes after I have a letter published in the paper people react. First I get a message of encouragement left on the answerphone supporting the views expressed. Older man.

Later my 12 year-old answered the phone to someone who has been ringing me since 2001. The caller gives me only her first name. Was a time her son would get on the other extension and they would harangue me doubly. An elderly lady who goes on and on without taking a breath about walking a mile in her shoes, unfairness, rich capitalists,etc etc. Yesterday she knowingly visited it on my daughter. That makes me very, very angry.

Lindsay is a quiet, caring, public-spirited, totally non-racist, and consequently very brave person for daring to tell the truth about welfarism.

One of her recent truth crimes was to point out that the poorest people in New Zealand are Asians, yet they tend not to use their poverty as an excuse to steal, cheat, get wasted, and bash their kids to death. (My words, not hers.)

Another crime was to dare to live in Eastbourne, no doubt because she, her husband and/or his or her forebears dared to make some good choices. Reprehensible.

I’ve just posted the following comment on her blog. You may care to do likewise.

Hang in there, Lindsay.

Here in the topsy-turvy Land of the Long White Lie, honesty has become a crime punishable by social ostracism.

Our people have been reduced to craven, if unwitting, liars thanks to the triumphant march through the culture of socialism, tribalism, eco-exaggerationism, teacher unionism and feminazism.

To reverse the polarity, the truthful have no choice but to speak out strongly, as you do. That you have worked hard and married someone similarly diligent is a burden you will just have to live with :-)

As Bob Jones said when he came out to launch her ACT campaign in 2008, New Zealand needs more Lindsay Mitchells.

Sadly ACT did not agree, placing her at number 14, below many less qualified candidates, and she is now lost to the party.

Published in: on July 22, 2011 at 1:38 pm  Leave a Comment  

ACT’s ex-ad man wants Judith Collins for prime minister

The above headed the Dom Post’s letter section today, where they published my reply to a reader’s letter (see both below).

Actually, I didn’t say that. I said Judith should lead National. And she surely will, once voters finally tumble to the full extent of the John Key Con.

(Today’s announcement of a 21-year inflation high is just the latest example of the PM’s Muldoonishly negligent economic management.)

With Crusher Collins in charge, the Nats will again be able to claim to be a true-blue party of the right, instead of the current reddy-browny-greeny-bluey slush perceived by the principled voter as deepest yellow.

(And I don’t mean ACT yellow. Despite my recent comments about ACT’s cowardice in not going hard enough on Maorification, they remain the only brave, honest party we’ve got.)

First the reader’s letter for context:

Some women do talk bluntly

John Ansell, former ad man for the ACT Party (July 11), is yet another public figure to have paid the price for having the courage to voice the views of many New Zealanders. Nice boys don’t win ball games. Mana Party leader Hone Harawira’s response that “New Zealanders would not stand for Maori bashing” is duplicitous in the face of his frequent Pakeha bashing.

I would challenge Mr Ansell, however, in his view that ACT should “target male voters because “women did not want to talk bluntly, and were ruled by their emotions”. I cite former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher as one of many strong women with the courage of their convictions.”

VIPI GREGORY-MEREDITH
Otaki

My reply:

ACT’s ex-ad man wants Judith Collins for prime minister

I quite agree with Vipi Gregory-Meredith (Letters, July 14) that former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had the courage of her convictions. She was the role model for all conviction politicians (and conviction copywriters, for that matter).

But I don’t agree that she was a woman. Mrs Thatcher was, in fact, the greatest male politician of recent times and possibly the greatest politician, period. (Or should I say full stop, lest I suffer further odious comparisons with former Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) chief executive Alasdair Thompson.)

I hate the way newspapers insert their own words into readers’ letters. I did not write the words ‘former Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) chief executive’ — nor were they necessary, given the media witch-hunt of recent weeks.

And just as Maggie was a great bloke, Prime Minister John Key is undoubtedly one of the weakest of female politicians, with his readiness to put popularity before all those boring “economicky” things, such as catching up with Australia and slamming the anchors on New Zealand’s voyage to the bottom of the OECD.

A poor choice of metaphor by me, since submarines don’t need anchors.

As people can see, my gender definitions differ from many. I generalise for effect, and there are always exceptions.

On the same note, the strongest man in National’s caucus is undoubtedly Judith “Crusher” Collins. The sooner she takes over the leadership the better.

JOHN ANSELL
Te Aro

Published in: on July 19, 2011 at 8:49 pm  Comments (1)  

40 facts the DomPost would not let voters read – but charged ACT for anyway

 
These were the 40 facts that the Dominion Post editor refused to let her readers read when she censored the ACT ad headlined Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?:
  1. The National government has been trading New Zealand’s resources for Maori Party votes.
  2. With enough party votes, ACT will be able to stop National doing this.
  3. ACT supports the Treaty of Waitangi – including Article III.
  4. Article III says all New Zealanders have the same rights.
  5. ACT thinks Maori culture is a very important part of New Zealand culture.
  6. Labour and National governments have betrayed Article III to give iwi a favoured position in many aspects of New Zealand life.
  7. Maori’s favoured position does nothing for most Maori.
  8. Maori remain among our poorest people.
  9. Under a string of governments, New Zealand has been slowly morphing into a state where those who are Maori have more rights than those who are not.
  10. Under this National Government, that morphing is speeding up.
  11. National didn’t have to appease the Maori Party. They chose to do so.
  12. National broke their promise to scrap the race-based Maori seats.
  13. National replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act with the Marine and Coastal Area Act.
  14. The Marine and Coastal Area Act makes it much easier for the Maori Party’s mates to claim New Zealand’s coastal riches.
  15. National ratified (we should have said ‘endorsed’) the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  16. The UNDRIP provides for separate development for Maori.
  17. Helen Clark’s Labour Party refused to endorse the UNDRIP.
  18. National foisted on Aucklanders a Maori Statutory Board.
  19. That board was unelected.
  20.  That board can hold the balance of power on council committees.
  21. National forced the people of Wanganui to put up with their city’s name being spelled Whanganui.
  22.  The people of Wanganui had by a large margin rejected the alternative spelling.
  23. National lumbered the Environmental Protection Authority with a Maori Advisory Committee.
  24. National kept the crippling RMA conditions that force many New Zealanders to ‘bribe the tribe’ to develop their own land.
  25. National established ‘co-governance’ of the Waikato River.
  26. National will soon establish co-governance of other rivers.
  27. National proposes to ban New Zealanders from clearing native scrub on their own land.
  28. The Waitangi Tribunal has recommended that tangata whenua be able to veto decisions about New Zealand’s plants and animals.
  29. Wellington City Council has proposed to give Maori special status to manage the Town Belt.
  30. The Maori Party proposes to force all teachers to learn Maori.
  31. The Maori Party wants to see a new constitution that runs totally contrary to one law for all.
  32. The Treaty of Waitangi granted the rights of British subjects to all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori.
  33. Apirana Ngata urged Maori to help themselves.
  34. He was not referring to other people’s money in the form of welfare cheques.
  35. Only the ACT party embraces Apirana Ngata’s vision for Maori.
  36. Don Brash so admired Apirana Ngata that he put his face on the New Zealand $50 note.
  37. Only ACT’s policies will tackle the root causes of high Maori unemployment and crime.
  38. Only ACT’s education and economic policies will give Maori trapped in poverty and illiteracy the means to raise themselves up and enjoy a better life.
  39. ACT was founded in 1994 to solve these very problems.
  40. Only a strong ACT can stop the Maori radicalisation of New Zealand.
Why did the editor of the newspaper of New Zealand’s capital city deny voters the chance to read these facts — yet still charged ACT full price for the space, which the party were forced to fill with a weaker ad more to the DomPost editor’s taste.
 
Why did the Dominion Post editor censor a headline which asked a question to which most of her readers were highly likely to have answered Yes?
 
Published in: on July 18, 2011 at 11:49 pm  Comments (6)  

UnfreeDom – PC paper denies Wellingtonian voters access to ACT policy

For Wellingtonians who never saw the banned ACT ad, this is what all the fuss was about:

The cowardly Dominion Post forced ACT to pay full price
for the space they’d booked, yet refused to accept the ad.

The more tolerant NZ Herald was happy to run
the ad as is, in the interests of free speech.

Cowardly ACT vetoed my original version, 
which someone (not me) leaked to the Herald.

I hope the DomPost pays a price for their cowardly decision to refuse the ‘radicals’ ad and deny ACT its freedom of speech.

In a week of the most vicious criticism I’ve known, not one of my critics — least of all the Dom — has been able to point to a single untrue statement in the ad.

I’ve just counted: the ad contains 30 statements of fact– all provably true.

Yet despite keeping these 30 facts from its readers, the Dom was happy to run a Rosemary McLeod column castigating and mocking the writer of those 30 truths, and his client.

And here’s the ultimate cheek: the paper also demanded full payment for the space the party had booked in good faith, thus leaving the party with little choice but to fill that space with a hastily arranged compromise ad.

If I’d known about the Dom’s decision, my substitute ad would have looked like this:

And what was the paper’s beef with the ad that the Herald was happy to run? That it promoted racial disharmony.

In other words, my crime was to tell certain truths with a force designed to make sure they were heard, when my critics and their media lackeys would rather they were not.

The relentless attacks on me have confirmed my view that the socialist-feminist-tribalist Wellington elite has so corrupted New Zealand that we’ve become a nation of liars.

State-sponsored lies about Maori issues and others are now so normal that any statement of the truth is taken as a cultural affront.

The smiling, well-bred, easy-going liars who run our country must not be allowed to hide behind the skirts of euphemism and gobbledygook. Let them speak the whole truth, unvarnished by the slippery language of political correctness. 

Tell it straight and tell it true. Plainly. Simply. Boldly. Clearly. That way lies understanding.

Surely we owe our people that.

Published in: on July 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm  Comments (4)  

Pastafarian infects Austria with humour

 
Driving licence of Niko Alm
 
The BBC reports that an Austrian atheist and member of the the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (AKA Pastafarians) has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as “religious headgear”.

Does this mean the birth nation of that other Führer (is that really the ideal first word for an official document?) has suddenly unearthed a hitherto unknown Austro-Teutonic strain of humour?

Possibly. A friend who lived there says Austrians are like the Irish — known for their sense of humour. (Though only, I fear, by the Germans.)

Actually that may be right: they have a town in Austria called Fucking (a sister city, I dare say, of Intercourse, Pennsylvania), where the Brits — and no doubt the Irish – keep nicking the signs.

But last I heard, the Austrians were not amused.

Before we conclude that Austria is undergoing some sort of post-Pythonesque renaissance of rib-tickling, the story goes on:

After receiving his application the Austrian authorities had required him to obtain a doctor’s certificate that he was “psychologically fit” to drive.

Clearly the bureaucracy remain untouched by the new craze.

But I do like the sound of this religion, which is, predictably, American.

The group’s website states that “the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma”.

I like that. Do I detect a subliminal message in all this for our Islamofascist brothers? Not necessarily…

In response to pressure for American schools to teach the theory known as intelligent design, which some Christians favour as an alternative to natural selection, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the pastafarian version of intelligent design to be taught to schoolchildren.

Seems their religion-ridicule is non-denominational. And fair enough. So is mine.

(Though I do reserve the right to gently poke fun at moronic, medieval, misogynistic Muslims for their discourteous bombings, beheadings and unsporting insistence that all their pretty girls dress like Darth Vader.)

The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith.

I may join. Better still, I wonder if they have a New Zealand diocese? If Brian Tamaki can be a bishop…
 
I particularly like their religious artworks.
 
 
 
And also the HateMail section on their website where godawful Goddists can abuse His Noodliness for mocking their imaginary friends.
 
Like this guy.
 
Peace and light.
Published in: on July 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm  Comments (3)  

Rosemary McLeod attacks me in today’s DomPost

Rosemary McLeod — a lovely women, and probably the world’s worst copywriter when she dabbled briefly in advertising in the early 90s — gets stuck into me in today’s DomPost.

I’ve asked the editor for the right of reply. (I’m not holding my breath, given the Dom’s craven cowardice in banning ACT’s totally factual ad – while insisting that the party pay for the space in full.)

Assuming that the Dom will be consistent in their cowardice, I’d better reply to Rosemary’s points here:

There’s no need for satire in a country that does it naturally. We have the ACT party, and need little more. Let me explain.

In fits of gentility my mother used to make fancy desserts in tall parfait glasses, layers of custard, fruit and whipped cream, say, with a cherry on top.

OK, so we now know that gentility isn’t genetic — but so what? Come on, Rosemary, get to the point.

To eat these you needed special long-handled parfait spoons – a dainty crocheted place mat wouldn’t have gone amiss – and this reminds me of both a proverb and ACT’s leader.

Oh for God’s sake.

“He who sups with the devil will need a long spoon” – like my mother’s long-handled ones – when dealing with irrepressible types like John Ansell, author of a self-published book of verse – and CD – entitled I Think The Clouds are Cotton Wool.

And a very good book it is too. But what does my poetry have to do with the price of fish?

On the day his latest advertising campaign was launched, Ansell, ACT’s marketing director, who has effervesced recently on both Maori and women, was absent from the party conference.

That’s because I’d asked to be released from my contract three days earlier, Rosemary. And I was the creative director, not marketing director. Get your facts straight. 

He later resigned from the party.

Earlier, Rosemary. I resigned earlier, and confirmed it later.

ACT’s leader, Don Brash, could not be seen to publicly condone Ansell’s comments, let alone his verse, yet such topics draw together the most delightful of pink-skinned blokes, the thinkers.

Let alone his verse? Huh?

And would you have talked about skin colour if the thinkers were brown-skinned, or is that just OK cos we’re ‘pink’?

Embodiments of all that is racially and culturally superior, they know they are endowed – probably by God – with special insights of a purely logical kind, as well as superior mating tackle, which helps with logic and stuff like that.

You’re dead right about God, Rosemary. There’s no doubt He was a Muslim-strength misogynist, considering the excruciating nature of childbirth, periods, women’s magazines, and your columns.

Women have been dealt with – logically – twice in the past couple of weeks by these better-endowed sorts, first by sacked Employers and Manufacturers’ Federation boss Alasdair Thompson, who pointed out that we menstruate, and therefore can’t be the equals of men in the workplace, and now by Ansell.

Yes, and it’s amazing how many honest, rational women have responded agreeing with both of us. (See the post below from Vivienne.)

Oh and — hate to interrupt your illogical rant with a fact, Rosemary – I don’t believe Alasdair ever said that because they menstruate, women ‘can’t be the equals of men in the workplace.’

I think you made that up.

I can’t speak for Alasdair. But I agree with my wife that women may well compensate for their comparative lack of attendance (again, a fact — which Alasdair was absolutely entitled to state) with superior performance when they do deign to turn up. :-)

Women are famous for multi-tasking. They’re certainly more conscientious than men, and infinitely more obedient.

And as long as the work doesn’t involve building or fixing anything, in my experience they make first-rate employees. (And, indeed, employers.) 

He explained that ACT’s advertising concepts – which he’d apparently been in eager charge of – should focus on men because women don’t want to “talk bluntly” and are “ruled by their emotions”.

Men ultimately defer to the brain for hard decisions, he added, while women look to their, you know, weepy bits.

Rosemary, are you seriously suggesting I was not telling a blindingly obvious truth?

Was that truth not made all the more obvious by women’s repeated re-election of  Helen Clark?

If it was down to men, Rosemary, Clarxism would have been flushed away in 2005 and Brash would now be in his sixth year as PM.

Does anyone seriously doubt that New Zealand would today be a more prosperous nation under Brash than it was under Clark – or than it’s ever going to be under the decidedly more feminine Key? 

Men, being on the whole more logical and economically literate, are more likely to opt for long-term economic gain at the price of a bit of short-term pain.

Women, being more concerned about preserving their day-to-day popularity, will plump for short-term gain, and guarantee long-term misery.

The only exception to that rule was in the Britain of Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher is one of the greatest conviction politicians of all time, and fully deserves to be elevated to the status of honorary man.

(Ayn Rand and Ruth Richardson are two other thoroughly logical women. Jenny Shipley was strong. And I have high hopes that Crusher Collins will soon become that rarest of birds: a National Prime Minister who is not a complete waste of space.)

British women ‘got’ Maggie because she related her economic management to their household budgeting.

And he was happy to be leaving ACT, he said, because they were collectively “white cowards” who were not standing up to the “Maorification” of the country.

An annoying, but typical, journalistic misquote.

I was referring to New Zealanders more broadly, not just ACT. ACT is by far the least cowardly party — but far too cowardly all the same.

The world hasn’t heard such rhetoric since Enoch Powell, and as luck would have it, he and Ansell appear to have knowledge of the classics in common.

The ancients believed women’s wombs and uteri could travel around their bodies causing all manner of hysterical carry-on – hence the very word hysteria, which proves once and for all that we’re loony-tunes.

 If you say so, Rosemary. But I most certainly did not say so.

As regards Enoch Powell, his warnings about ‘rivers of blood’ if Britain threw open her doors to ill-fitting immigrants have been proven spectacularly correct with the infestation of moronic, home-grown, murderous, misogynistic Muslims now being incited to jihad by medieval mullahs in the mosques of Londonistan.

I thought an old feminist like you would support Powell’s position, Rosemary. He certainly supported yours.

Ansell did not spare Maori, who he said had “gone from the Stone Age to the space age in 150 years, and haven’t said thanks”.

Well, they have. And they haven’t.

Has one Maori leader ever expressed gratitude for all the wonderful life-enhancing technological marvels that Western civilisation has bestowed upon his people?

(Marvels like the wheel. And writing. And shoes. Not to mention the computers on which so many of them have penned abusive, text-gangstarese threats to me in recent days.)

All we hear is a relentless wailing and moaning about how the rest of us are not giving them enough.

He is evidently a believer despite all the evidence – unemployment, drug and alcohol addiction, high rates of imprisonment, poor health, shorter life expectancy – that Maori are somehow ripping us all off.

Yes I am.

The choices made by too many Maori to wag school, not study, bludge benefits, invade homes, do drugs, eat junk, smash heads and kill their kids, are just that.

Choices, Rosemary, choices.

For too long, cunning Irish Steves pretending to be Maori Tipenes have been donning their whalebone carvings and pulling the wool over the eyes of weak whiteys.

For too long, these Steves and their lawyers (especially one called Chris) have tried to make it the fault of other New Zealanders that Maori are ‘disadvantaged’.

That the education system has ‘failed Maori’.

That the health system has ‘failed Maori’.

(Yet strangely not the welfare system.)

In fact, as any honest examiner of the facts can see, Maori have failed the education system. It is Maori who have chosen not to avail themselves of Western medicine, not the other way round.

That’s their free choice. They should not blame others if they’ve wasted these golden opportunities for advancement. 

If you think I’m being harsh, Rosemary, look at what the Chinese — the “Yellow Peril” of this time last century – look at how they forgave, if not forgot, their racist oppressors.

Look at how they just got on and beat the whites at their own game.

That, I think, is the difference between Buddhism and Confucianism and socialism and tribalism. It’s the difference between looking forward with hope, resolve and optimism, and looking backwards with bitterness and one’s hand out.

Of course, we can’t blame these cunning iwi aristocrats for waging their long-running campaign of emotional blackmail. After all, Treaty grief has worked a treat so far.

Given half a chance to extort billions of dollars from a government weak enough to fall for their tricks, you and I might well do the same.

But the game’s up.

The Maoristocracy should not expect the rest of us to renegotiate Treaty settlements that they were happy to accept as fully and finally settled in the 1940s. (I’ll be blogging the evidence for that soon.)

I rather think Ansell has himself demonstrated how it’s possible to leap from the space age to the Stone Age in a single bound, back to when involuntary grunts passed for dialectic.

I’d rather make involuntary grunts than involuntary grants.

Those were the days, when Maori would have been taught to be thankful for chicken pox, measles, influenza,and the host of other diseases from the northern hemisphere that nearly wiped them out, and grateful that they lost their ancestral lands thanks to the workings of a legal system they had no part in creating, and whose machinations were foreign to them.

That’s nonsense, Rosemary. Precisely the kind of absurd emotional female non-logic that I was talking about.

Here’s the boring old fact: What nearly wiped Maori out was each other. Heard of the Musket Wars?

Bloodthirsty, armed Nga Puhi warriors rampaged through the land slaughtering half of their fellow (unarmed) countrymen.

This was in the 1820s and 30s, before your disease-infested Brits even got going.

If the Brits had waited another ten years, they would have walked into a land where all that was left of the natives were bullet-shattered bones. 

(Trouble is, it would also have been full of insufferable Frenchmen, hence why they couldn’t wait.)

There is a Disney version of the settlement of this country by Europeans which all of us learned from the back of cereal packets.

Yes, but even that Disney version is not as fantastic as the make-believe Maori-Marxist version that today’s kids get brownwashed with, year after year after mind-numbing year, in social studies.

(Which should really be called socialist studies. For about eight years straight, whenever I asked my kids what they were studying in social studies, the only answer I ever got in that whole time was “The Treaty”.)

In the make-believe Maori-Marxist version, there is, I am confident, no mention of how the Maori wiped out vastly more of their own people deliberately with muskets than the British did accidentally with diseases.

Nor of how an activist judge called Robin Cooke dreamed up the first of two Landmark Lies: that the Treaty was a partnership between a bunch of stone age tribesmen and the greatest civilisation on earth.

(As opposed to an agreement to run the country and protect Nga Puhi from southern tribesmen hell-bent on revenge for Nga Puhi’s ethnic cleansing of their relatives — and from the fearful French and a gathering swarm of escaped Australian convicts.)

In the Maori-Marxist version, there is, I’m supremely confident, no mention of how Geoffrey Palmer, that legal genius who gave us the Red Tape Multiplication Act — I mean Resource Management Act – conjured up out of thin air the second of the Landmark Lies: that the Treaty contained a set of Principles.

(Presumably written in invisible ink.) 

Nor of how the government has been covering up the true English version of the Treaty, the Littlewood Treaty, ever since it was discovered in the late 1980s.

Nor of how the same government slapped a 75 year suppression order on the carbon dating results of hundreds of Celtic stone dwellings in the Waipoua Forest that are likely to prove that Maori, as well as being not indigenous (they invaded by sea only a few hundred years before Tasman, after all), were also far from the first people to settle these islands.

But there is another reality in the consequences for Maori, just as there has been for native people wherever Europeans have moved in and taken over.

And that is that their life expectancy and living standards improve out of sight from what they were under their own management.

ACT’s latest advertising slogan, “Fed Up With Pandering to Maori Radicals?” panders to people who insist that the shared history and common plight of Maori, native Australians, and native Americans is their own fault.

Such a belief, whatever Ansell says, is infinitely less about logic than emotion.

Rosemary: in the old Maori world, the rule of conquest was, ”We won, you lost, eat you.”

When a Maori tribe defeated another tribe in battle, the losers were slaughtered or enslaved.

The victorious chief then celebrated by ingesting a delicacy that may have been the original inspiration for the Hokitika Wild Food Festival – the enemy chief’s eyes.

(Te Rauparaha, Te Kooti, Hone Heke, etc. had cause to be grateful that the British Army commanders preferred meat and two veg.)

In America and Australia, the white colonisers were similarly ruthless. The Spanish in Latin America were even worse. 

But the British in New Zealand were astonishingly civilised by the standards of the day.

Thus there are hundreds of thousands of Maori alive today who would not be, had the usual 1840 Maori and Pakeha rules of engagement applied.

I’m not saying, Rosemary, that that excuses legitimate breaches of the Treaty. It doesn’t. There should be redress for those breaches which can be proven.

But it does put in perspective how lucky the descendants of those Maori people are to have a Treaty to wail and moan about, and a tribe with which to share the spoils.

The same cannot be said for the tribes that their tribes massacred, like those in Taranaki, who were massacred by the Waikato, and the Chatham Islands Moriori and Wellington Maori, who were massacred by the remnants of the Taranaki.

The guilt trip isn’t all one-way, Rosemary.

It’s time for the Treaty gravy train to chug back to the station, and for you to stop letting its passengers do your thinking for you.

Here endeth the logic.

Published in: on July 14, 2011 at 8:09 pm  Comments (10)  

On Maori TV, 5.30pm tonight

Just had Maori TV at the flat chatting to me about my new-found infamy.

I’d been warned by a certain prominent Wellingtonian not to do it, but I’m pleased I ignored his advice. 

I was able to say exactly what I thought while looking two very pleasant Maori people in the eye (reporter Semi Ramis and her cameraman Dave, whom I knew from the days when we performed at the Angus Inn Poetry Cafe).

Semi did not mince words with her questions, and neither did I with my answers. Depending on what they cherry-pick from the long interview, they may be among the more candid replies in recent NZ TV history!

But at the end, Semi told me that having now realised that I wasn’t such a bad guy, she could understand my point of view.

Progress! This is exactly what I was hoping would happen.

And if you were to say to me: “Well then, why couldn’t you have been less direct to the Herald journalist or in the ad”, I would reply: “Because if I had not used jolting language, the news media would not have been interested in talking about it. Journalists are interested in entertainment and conflict, not information and such tiresome concepts as building a stronger economy.”

I can’t remember all the questions and answers verbatim, so here’s my ideal transcription — what I said, plus what I would like to have said if there’d been more time.

Bit strange, I know, but I thought this might be the best way of summing up my thoughts at the moment:

What’s your problem with Maori?

None at all. I don’t have a problem with you or Dave. We seem to be getting on pretty well, don’t we?

But I do have a big problem with the Maorification of my country. Because it’s my country too, not just yours and Dave’s.

And 85% of its people are not Maori.

In fact, many of its Maori people are not all that Maori. Peter Sharples’ dad was born in Bolton. He might well be related to Ena Sharples from Coronation Street.

Tariana Turia’s dad was an American.

That’s fairly typical, isn’t it?

I don’t think it’s rude to point out this truth. It’s highly relevant if we’re talking about people like me handing over money to people like you.

Let’s be honest: being Maori today is a cultural thing. Maori people are certainly absolutely genuine about their desire to practise their Maori culture.

But they’re not racially Maori in the same way the people who signed the Treaty were.

Am I a racist for mentioning that truth?

Those Maori can’t have been too upset with their colonisers because they married them in such numbers that many Maori today have more Pakeha blood than Maori.

Is that not the truth?

And if it is, is it not OK for me to tell it? 

I know that sounds harsh to those who have grown up in the Maori world and treasure their Maoriness. But it’s important when it comes to non-Maori people like me being asked to hand over our money. 

But if Maori are so advantaged, why then are Maori are at the bottom of all the worst social statistics?

Simple: bad choices. Bad choices made by those people, or by their parents, or by their grandparents.

Don’t blame colonisation. Colonisation by the greatest power on Earth was a very lucky break for Maori.

Colonisation by the British is what’s allowed Maori to get the benefit of technology that has allowed them to go aheads in leaps and bounds.

You’re damn lucky it wasn’t the Spanish. They would have embarked on an ethnic cleansing campaign that was even worse than the Nga Puhi’s slaughter of 60,000 unarmed southerners.

Or the French. I gather the chiefs were very keen to get the Brits’ protection rather than risk being owned by Bishop Pompallier’s mob.

Why are Maori not performing as well as non-Maori? A lot of it’s to do with laziness. 

Look, in my home here, I’m outnumbered two to one by Chinese – my Taiwanese wife and stepson. And I tell you what, the Chinese attitude is very different from the Maori one.

It’s the difference between Buddhism and socialism.

No race in New Zealand has suffered more state-sponsored racial prejudice than the Chinese did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

We used to call them the Yellow Peril. We made them pay a racist Poll Tax just to get in.

And what was the Chinese response to all that odious racism?

They just shrugged their shoulders and said, “Oh well, that was all in the past”. And they rolled up their sleeves and got on with beating the white man at his own game.

(Which they largely did.) 

And that’s exactly the same message that the great Maori leaders of around the same period had for Maori — the Apirana Ngatas.

Ngata was the first New Zealander of any race to get a double degree.

His message was, “Look what I’ve done. You can do it too. Forget the welfare cheques, get educated and beat the white man at his own game.”

But of course his people said, “No thanks, we’ll take the money.”

And so it’s their own fault they’re at the bottom of all those statistics, not other people’s. They shouldn’t blame colonisation.

Why do you feel the need to use such strong language?

I do it to deliberately jolt people into seeing sense. People aren’t used to the truth in PC New Zealand. They think it’s shocking.

But it’s just the truth, unvarnished.

And of course to attract the attention of people like you.

I mean, you guys in the media are not interested in information. You’re interested in entertainment. Conflict. 

For example, I wrote in that ad that in this day and age we shouldn’t have to ’bribe the tribe’ to pacify a taniwha.

I wrote that because that’s exactly what the government had to do to get the Waikato Expressway built. 

Upon payment of a certain amount of koha, the tribe reported that the taniwha had returned to his underground lair and would no longer be a problem.

It was the absolute truth, told absolutely straight. It’s sad that such honesty is seen as a bad thing.

If people find that the truth hurts, they should get the tribes to stop demanding bribes.

And they should stop expecting a grown-up country to take notice of mystical beliefs.

I mean there are lots of religions for people who want imaginary friends to do their thinking for them — though God knows why you’d want an imaginary enemy like a taniwha.

But why should we let these superstitions get in the way of progress — of improving our standard of living?

Our species has made extraordinary progress over the last 200 years. And we haven’t done it by re-routing motorways for make-believe swamp monsters. 

As you know, I also said (not in the ad, but to the Herald) that Western civilisation has taken Maori from the Stone Age to the Space Age in 150 years and haven’t even said thanks.

Yes I did notice that!

Yes, and I was wrong to have said it.

I should have said 120 years.

Again, it’s just the truth.

And I do think it would be nice to hear Maori show a bit of gratitude for all the technological marvels the evil colonisers have given them.

Things like the wheel, for example. And paper.And writing. And those computers that have allowed so many of them to write abusive comments on my blog.

Do you have any regrets for saying these things?

No. Why should I? Was even one of them untrue?

I’ve had hundreds of people criticise me over the last few days, and every single one of them uses abuse as a substitute for factual evidence. No one has yet managed to disprove a single thing I’ve written. 

Are you related to Colin King-Ansell?

The Nazi guy!? Absolutely not.

I well remember him being on TV when I was growing up. He had a hyphen then, but he seems to have dropped it, which is embarrassing.

No, I’m not a Nazi — I’m technically a quarter Jewish actually. Apparently my great-grandfather was a Red Sea Pedestrian. And I gather Jews tend not to make very good Nazis.

Are you racist?

No. Why do you ask?

Well a lot of people would say that what you’ve been saying and writing is racist.

Yes, and a lot of people would be wrong.

But of course I wrote words like Maorification in order to outrage and cause people like you to ask me questions like that.

Then I can explain that Maorification is nothing more than a statement of truth.

So you are opposed to Maori?

No I’m not. I’m opposed to Maori who are opposed to Maori by thinking they need to be indulged with other people’s money.

I’m talking to two Maori right now and we seem to be getting on all right, don’t we? At least I think so. What I’m opposed to is the Maorification of my country.

And what exactly do you mean by Maorification?

I mean the creeping separatism that would have New Zealand become two countries instead of one.

And it’s been creeping a lot faster under the Key government.

What separatism?

Well, for example, we’ve now got separate unelected Maori boards to advise the Auckland council.

Hone Harawira wants a separate Maori Parliament.

We’ve got Maori thinking they’ve got a superior right to manage the plants and animals of our country.

And that they can tell farmers that they can’t cut scrub if it happens to be indigenous. (When Maori themselves are hardly indigenous.)

Maori should not have these rights. Any more than Pakeha should have sole rights to the things they brought here like cloth and paper and metal.

There should be only one law, and it should apply to all of us.

So what else do you mean by Maorification?

It’s the emotional blackmail campaign that has been going on for the last 25 years — by Maori leaders and their weak non-Maori fellow travellers — to hoodwink white New Zealanders into feeling guilty enough about the supposed sins of their great-great-grandparents to hand over the country to them.

I mean all the fraud and fabrications around the Treaty. Like the Principles of the Treaty that Geoffrey Palmer just made up.

And the notion of partnership that was dreamed up out of thin air by the activist judge Robin Cook.

And those two inventions kicked off the Treaty gravy train which is still chugging along a quarter of a century later.

I mean the Treaty the government is using isn’t even the real English version of the Treaty.

What do you mean?

The real English Treaty is the Littlewood Treaty that was discovered in 1989 — the word-for-word translation of the Maori Tiriti that has no mention of forests and fisheries.

But the government doesn’t want us to know about the Littlewood Treaty. They’ve had their researchers like Claudia Orange pretend that it’s just another of many translations.

“Nothing to see, move along here.”

But it’s been covered up because it doesn’t suit the agenda of governments wishing to pander to these Maori aristocrats in exchange for Maori votes in Parliament.

And there’s another huge cover-up relating to the people who were here before the Maori.

(Not sure if I said that bit or not. Anyway, it’s nearly time for the show, so we’ll soon see. I’ll probably rework this post after that.)

UPDATE: They only showed a fraction of what I said, and I looked more severe than I felt. Commentary in Maori and I only speak Plain English. Ranginui Walker made a comment – disapproving no doubt.

 

Published in: on July 13, 2011 at 6:10 pm  Comments (12)  

A heartwarming email from a rational woman

Thanks to everyone who has sent me a supportive email in the last few days. These two from Vivienne Campbell I found particularly heartwarming:

(Note: as a plain English crusader, I’ve taken the liberty of breaking Vivienne’s original into short paragraphs, so you’ll be more likely to read the second one right to the end. Believe me, it’s worth it.)

Hi

Are you the John Ansell of the ACT Party?

If you are, I would like to THANK you for having the courage and the integrity to make the comments you did, about the Maori radicals!

It is an indictment on the ACT Party that you were forced to resign. I was thinking of voting for them but now I will not.  

Instead of forcing you to resign they should have stood by your comments, and backed you. We know they agree with your comments anyway, as do most New Zealanders.

You are truly a wonderful breath of fresh air.  Please keep going.

Kind regards

Vivienne Campbell

PS…everyone in our household agrees with you. That’s 6 people.

I wrote back thanking Vivienne. I urged her to still vote ACT as the only honest option, and added that I hoped she wouldn’t be offended by my next bombshell: that ACT’s natural prospects are men, and women who think like men.

Then she wrote this:

Hi John

Yes well like you, I am sick of this PC rubbish that is forced at us. I’m utterly sick and tired of it. And I know that others are too. I hear it,  and see that feeling in others every day. 

And I find it refreshing that someone has the guts to come out and say what many, many people feel, but are too scared to say. 

And anyway, it was only a spontaneous comment in passing, said for effect or example, as one does with anything they talk about. 

Why should we be scared to say what we feel? WHY? 

I have decided I’m not going to be. Though I’m a shy person, painfully at times, if something comes up that I think is absurdly PC then I reject it. 

Only occasionally do I strike someone who doesn’t agree, but then they say oh we can’t say that, or oh I know, I feel this too, but I want to keep my job, or I don’t want my car attacked, or my dog hurt or poisoned or this or  that.

If we have comments like yours which we want to say which are true or reasonably believed to be true, but are nevertheless unpalatable to some people then too bad, let us say it anyway. 

It isn’t as if it is intended to be the guts of the whole conversation. It is just said in passing, as one thing in a whole lot of other things. It shouldn’t be  swooped on and treated as if it is the whole point of the conversation, and said to be racist or sexist.

That is dumb and we should not get hooked up into responding to such silly responses. 

I am referring here  to your comment that in 150 years Maori have gone from the Stone Age to the Space Age.

Well for Christ’s sake, of course they have! This is true!!  

And I would even add to that, that they hadn’t even discovered the wheel before Europeans came on the scene. 

You wouldn’t have meant any harm when you made  your comment and it was made in the context of your main point which was, I imagine, that the attitude of Maori is to take take take, and blame blame blame.

There really is no end to it, and there should be an end. And it should be an immediate end. 

This is an attitude we are all sick of, and we welcome political comment to that effect provided it is acted on, and not merely said to catch votes. 

It shouldn’t be said that a true comment like this makes you racist. That’s  daft.

Similarly, when you  said that Maori are ungrateful, this is fair comment. It must be fair, because they want more and more and more and more and more and more. 

We  all know it,  and so do they. It should all stop, it’s crazy. 

There are plenty of poor Europeans in this country too, who keep quieter than Maori, and go on struggling.   

I think it would be timely for Maori to start saying a few positve things, and meaning it. I think it is time they should admit some facts and take responsibility for those facts. 

Europeans should utterly reject blame.

Their drug abuse, alcohol abuse,  kid bashing, animal cruelty, lazyness, passing on of kids to relatives so that they become more vulnerable to abuse of all sorts, needs to be owned and taken responsibilty for,  and acted on by them  at their own expense. 

It doesn’t even take money to fix their problems, just a good dose of personal responsibility and personal grit. 

That way they take immediate control.

Personal responsibilty makes for control, whereas chronic whinging and blame makes for lack of control.  

These comments apply equally to Europeans who are in the same situation, and there are plenty of them.

They need some hard straight talking, and if said by enough people it becomes a prevailing attitude and expectation, and may do some good. 

As to sexism, well no, I’m not offended by your comments. You say them in passing and I’m not going to overreact. 

I have an example of a more malignant sexism. And that is the manipulation of women in the magazines. Oh, la plus change la plus meme! The more things change the more they stay the same! 

Women are manipulated horribly in magazines…what to read, what to wear, what  to put on their bodies and face, and how to please a man (who cares how to please a bloody man for Christ’s sake. 

That’s not a woman’s responsibility. A man is responsible for his own feelings, as are women!

You have been pilloried down the path of Alasdair Thompson, for making fair comment. 

What’s so wrong with talking of women’s monthly sicknesses? He only said it that way because he stumbled a bit with the word “period”. 

That is understandable given his age.

Why should he be pilloried for making such a comment? For sure he didn’t come across too well because he looked a bit blustery and half cut, and a tad overbearing. 

Women’s productivity is certainly diminished with a gut ache or a severe associated migraine-type  headache  and why indeed shouldn’t it be? 

It would have been far more productive and interesting if the interviewer had taken the interview down the path of well, if women are like this, who should bear the load? 

Should the woman be penalised for absence due to monthly discomfort, as apparently reflected in the figures, or should the loss be spread out across society and the employers?  

THEN we would have had a more meaningful exploration of Thompson’s views. 

But no, the poor guy (well sort of)  had to be pilloried and quoted ad nauseum for talking about the “monthy sickness” and relating it to productivity. 

Well I can assure you that I am perfectly happy to admit that my productivity goes down during the monthly sickness, and so what?  

Perhaps in the same vein as the Maori Stone Age, you should start going on about how women have never or rarely invented anything mechanical, and never likely will! 

Left alone, women would no more likely have invented the wheel than would the Maoris! 

Let’s get over it!! Their brains just are not in that place! Not then, and not now! 

For sure there maybe one or two, who possibly show signs that maybe they will invent something.

(I saw an American female turbine engineer on TV, and that was refreshing and interesting too!)    

But by and large (and we have to be able to generalise or we can’t converse smoothly) they haven’t. 

Perhaps you should talk about how every single thing that we take for granted in society… tunnels, planes, engines, GPS, household gadgets, bridges, sewing machines, whatever, have all been invented by MEN!! 

And women, no matter how well they do in physics or maths at school or uni, just do not have the interest and aptitude to go out into the garage and play round with anything mechanical. 

They leave it to men.   

Ever heard of two women out in the garage inventing a contraption? Of course not. We women have different (but equal) brains. 

So both women and Maoris would, if not for the European man, be Stone Age!! 

I don’t see how anyone could dispute this.

And I say this, as probably the first or second Ms in New Zealand, in 1969. My lone and bitter fight to be Ms and to keep my own name in marriage was almost seen as nuts. 

Now that was sexism, true and proper. 

I went this way after reading  as a 16 year old in  1966,  Betty Friedan’s  Feminine Mystique.  

Good luck with your interview. I hope you don’t back-track. It would be a shame. You would look like all the rest, and it’s great that you have had the guts to say what you think and I pray you stick to it.

I think you and Alasdair Thompson need to support each other and have a nice beer at the pub! 

It is a sad and angry day when people are down the road in their jobs because they express a particular view.

That is what ACT appeared not to stand for, but it appears I was very wrong on that.  

Cheers

Vivienne

Thanks for writing that, Vivienne. I’m neither racist nor sexist, but I don’t yet have Paul Henry’s thick skin (though I can feel it growing as we speak!). So your brand of encouragement helps a lot.

Published in: on July 12, 2011 at 11:32 am  Comments (9)  

On Radio Live with Paul Henry

Hello again after a long absence from blogging.

Apparently hundreds of you have been flocking to my long-dormant site today because of the fuss about the ACT ad and my departure.

So I thought I’d better oblige with some new content.

I’ve received some very supportive letters about my championing of the Maorification issue, which I’ll post separately.

But for now, this fun interview with the friend who, more than any other, makes me look like a safe pair of hands: Paul Henry.

Paul and I go back to when my creative recording studio, Padded Sell, was located on the same floor as his employer, Radio Pacific.

I used to marvel at how Paul was able to keep a straight face while interviewing the earnest peddlers of all sorts of bizarre potions and contraptions.

One I particularly remember was the Eternal Peace Light, a tacky plastic illuminated cross for installation on the graves of dead rellies.

Repeated attempts by my staff and me to crack Paul up by making faces behind the client’s back proved fruitless. But I did have some success today with the performance of a certain song…

Defending ACT on Morning Report

Despite having left the party, I did my best to turn this morning’s interview with Simon Mercep into a party political broadcast for ACT.

Published in: on July 11, 2011 at 7:19 pm  Comments (9)  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers