|
Soapbox Series
 This Soapbox Series is
an opportunity for those
of you with a penchant for writing, to put down your thoughts
– on any issue you feel passionate about. Opinion
pieces should be around 500 words.
Contributions can be submitted using this Soapbox
contribution>>> link.
Please
note that opinions expressed in the Soapbox Series are those of the
contributors.
To comment on
these articles go to letters
to editor >>>
Readers interested in opinion and debate are
encouraged to visit the NZCPR FORUM where interesting
information and fresh viewpoints are posted throughout the day - see
FORUM
>>>.
List of contributions
(#161 - current)
 16
November 11
ELECTION 2011: Questions
you should answer before VOTING?
Frederick
Van Dorestein
As we approach the Polling Booth it
becomes evident that none of the political parties vying to
govern us have any pre-election policy to sustain, foster,
boost or defend New Zealand’s ability to produce.
As our production output continues to
regress politicians offer Debt-based solutions by dramatically
increasing overseas borrowing.
Government Debt is even being provided by a
totalitarian dictatorship – China?
Our borrowing is already unsustainable at
up to $300 million per week.
The overall Government Debt having almost tripled since
2009.
Voters, no doubt have many questions to ask, but the following
key questions have been published with reference to likely
governing parties under MMP.
The questions focus on the failings of our political
system to face the realities that confront them.
THE NATIONAL PARTY:
- Can the National Party be trusted to act upon the will of the people
after this election concerning the Referendum on the
retention or otherwise of MMP.
(Or any new Referendum)
That is, considering their track record when it
comes to ignoring Referendum decisions?
Comment:
The Anti-Smacking Referendum determined that 87% of the
Electorate rejected any form of anti-smacking legislation to
be applied by government.
The National Party out rightly rejected the will of the
people once it became elected.
Since then 413 families have been subject to the
humiliation of criminal investigations - none have been
charged.
- Will a future National government change its fiscal and Debt
borrowing policies to avoid future credit rating
downgrades? (Downgrades
increase the risk of lending to NZ and force up the amount
of repayment interest payments – paid by the taxpayer?
Comment:
Global Credit Rating Agencies Standard and Poor’s and
Flitch downgraded New Zealand’s Credit Rating due to the
government’s high-risk Fiscal policies.
The National Party intends to sell off State Owned
Assets valued at $7 Billion dollars.
These assets act as Security over the Debts the country
continues to accumulate and without the current asset value
the cost of servicing the Debt will rise – paid by the
Taxpayer. The
future risk of another credit downgrade will also rise.
- Will the National Party in government continue to deliberately avoid
production opportunities in favour of importing from overseas countries using “Free Trade”
concepts?
Comment:
Recently 250 Railway staff were terminated in Dunedin because
they were superfluous to the needs of Kiwirail.
Yet 40 new rail locomotives have been purchased from a
totalitarian dictatorship (China) at a cost to the taxpayer of
$150 to $200 million. If
the locomotives had been built in New Zealand the multiplier
effect on the economy from money circulation would have grown
the GDP by billions. There
are other examples of National Party policy that refuses to
embrace the vital need to increase production.
- Will the National Party in government continue to impose increased
costs on the Electorate from the ETS (Emissions Trading
Scheme) that has driven the cost of living up to an all
time high in a high-risk economy?
Comment:
The cost of living, under the ETS, has risen dramatically, the
value of a carbon tonne continues to disintegrate, the EU is
collapsing under a growing Debt pile and the Kyoto Protocol
will not be renewed universally in 2012 – if at all.
Also, 100,000 New Zealanders have left the country for
Australia to avoid joblessness in New Zealand in the last 3
years. In addition
to the external costs the government ETS budget appropriation
against the taxpayer is $1 Billion Dollars this year
- Will the National Party in government continue to enter into “Free
Trade” Agreements as opposed to “Bi-Lateral” Trade
Agreements regardless of these agreements adverse effects
on New Zealand’s ability to manufacture – a
fundamental form of production?
Comment:
The
27 countries of the EU are a prime example of where NZ is
headed. In 2010
the EU imported $282 Billion dollars worth of Chinese imports.
This equates to $1 Trillion Dollars over the last 5
years. This means
that these products were not manufactured in the EU - denying
the economy trillions of dollars of economic activity.
Instead, production was replaced by Sovereign Debt to
achieve GDP growth. The
EU is now unable to continue building Debt to fill the gap
left by falling production – some member countries are
unable to pay interest on the Debt pile.
There is a high probability that most countries will
default - if the loans are not written off by Banks.
THE LABOUR PARTY:
- The pre-election Labour Party policy advocates increasing government expenditure.
Do you believe that this is sound policy under the
current circumstances of high rates of borrowing and
unsustainable Debt accumulation by successive governments?
Comment:
In
2011, Debt accumulation via the government budget deficit
build-up has climbed to record levels that have risen
dramatically from the Treasury’s Fiscal Statement
(Challenges and Choices) of 2009.
In 2009 the budget deficit was almost $6 billion –
this year it has reached $17 billion.
The rise in Debt has almost tripled that existing just
two years ago.
- Will the Labour
Party in government continue to enter into “Free
Trade” Agreements as opposed to “Bi-Lateral” Trade
Agreements regardless of these agreements adverse effects
on New Zealand’s ability to manufacture – a
fundamental form of production?
Comment:
During
the Clark governments 3 terms of governing the New Zealand
economy and its blanket promotion of “Free Trade”
agreements – 50%
of the manufacturing labour force left the industry due to
factory closure. The
dumping of low quality products at predatory prices, from a
totalitarian dictatorship (China), relentlessly undercut the
domestic market.
- Will the Labour
Party in government continue to build the “Black” or
“Parasitic” economy by continuing to increase the size
of the Public Sector thus increasing the cost of
bureaucracy and government – paid for by the Taxpayer
and new government Debt?
Comment:
During
the Clark government’s 9 years of governing the New Zealand
economy the Public Sector growth ballooned by 55 percent from
29,000 to a peak of over 45,000 employees in 2008.
THE GREEN PARTY:
- Under the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) the cost of living is at an
all time high in a high-risk economy - Is Green Business
nothing more than taking existing technology that is cost
effective and efficient and reinventing the product so
that it is offered to the consumer at an increased cost to
cope with the inefficiencies used to re-develop the
product?
Comment:
An
example of Green Business is “new” Electricity generation
- The advancement of electricity generation technology should
be based on cost and efficiency, as it always has been –
independent of politics. This
ensures that the economy remains competitive.
Green electricity generation dodges appreciation of
economics and technology and as such the cost of electricity
will continue to rise. Take
“wind farm” power generation. Huge backup costs are
required to ensure the continuity of power supply because the
wind stops blowing - often.
This causes enormous cost increases to the power grid.
Not to mention the huge future costs of maintenance
because there are millions of moving parts involved in these
low output wind turbines.
Green Business does, however, increase votes for the
Green Party!
- Will the Green Party in government move
to further introduce policy to Shutdown domestic
manufacturing of products containing CO2 – that is, to
fulfill their election platform of reducing carbon
emissions?
Comment:
New
Zealand manufactures some 360 cans and bottles of
“Carbonated” drink per resident every year.
The NZ consumer drinks over a billion of these
carbonated drinks each year – packed full of CO2.
This example indicates the huge benefit of this
multi-billion dollar manufacturing range of products to the
economy. But will
this type of manufacturing become under threat with the Green
Party in government directing Labour with hard carbon
emissions reduction policy?
Good Luck and use your Vote like a Bullet – because if you don’t
the next generation will use a Bullet!!!… Doing nothing is not an option – changing the
Fundamentals is the only option?
Frederick
Van Dorestein is an
assumed name in the interests of Author Privacy and no
commercial or personal gain is achieved from article
publishing.
References:
Journals and Reports, Economic
Factors, Wikipedia/Google, Media Reports, Quadrant
Online-Consultants, Centre
for Political Research (NZ)
Back
to top of page >>>
30
July 11
An Obituary
By
Brian Arrandale
The great battle has been won, the triumph of Feminism has
routed it last opponents and the Witches of Wellington
together with their allies have finally beaten the opposite
sex in the Battle of the Broomsticks!
Alasdair Thompson has gone, all
women kind can again rule unchallenged, due in part to a weak,
gutless spineless Employers’ Association whose attitude to
their employee defies any close examination. Perhaps one can
turn to history for a similar example, in the situation of
Lord Stafford prior to the English Civil War when after being
condemned to death he said: “Put not your trust in
Princes”!
Something far greater has been
lost, the “Right of Free Speech”. Not even our Prime
Minister felt the need to condemn this “Witch Hunt”; by
supporting what the National Party was once renowned for since
its inception. Instead with an impending election looming
large on the horizon, he felt it necessary to run with the
wolf pack. In this he not alone, being supported by most of
the other Party Leaders. No surprise in that.
This “Kangaroo Court
Interview” on the TV when the female interviewer had
selected certain sections for presentation thus distorting the
issue, and getting what was required for the advantage of
furthering “gutter journalism”, which was :-
“The ultimate destruction of
Mr. Thompson to the obvious delight of the Union movement and
the Ultra feminists”.
One can but wonder what would
have been a jury’s verdict if this case against Mr. Thompson
had been tried in a court of law with the WHOLE Television
interview being made available to the public, as well as the
jury. Just what would have been the charge against Mr.Thompson
in the first place?.
It was pleasing to see that in
a pole conducted on TV 1 there was a majority for Mr.
Thompson, which it seems has not made the Press, or indeed in
any other media outlets.
If this case shows anything, it
is that the Media in general sets out with an intended purpose
of destroying the credibility of those being interviewed, with
a bias towards those from the right wing of New Zealand
politics.
Coupled with the present case
against the “News of the World” in Britain, the recent
“Witch Hunt” here in New Zealand it is a disgrace, and an
unprofessional use of the privilege of journalism. It has
become obvious that this “profession” which has a duty to
all citizens in its reporting and interviewing, is out of
control and unable to discipline itself.
Perhaps Voltaire’s expression
can be quoted in this context:-
“Ecrasez I’infame”!
Untranslatable? Perhaps
“Destroy the Vermin” might be appropriate!
Publish and be Damned has now
assumed a new alarming dimension.
A case of Media; cure thyself.
Back
to top of page >>>
20
July 11
Thermodynamics and Climate Models
By
Vincent Gray
The whole of thermodynamics is based on systems in
equilibrium, The equations only apply where the system is
completely isolated from external influence. It must be
completely insulated from output or input of energy.
The universe is not an isolated system and is not in
equilibrium. In order to make use of thermodynamics for any
part of it, it is necessary to make simplifying assumptions.
The currently accepted climate model begins by assuming that
the energy output of the sun is constant. We have
sophisticated instruments to measure this energy but its
measured variability is deliberately concealed. When asked for
the information they refused, They only permit us to know
"averages", which presumably apply only to daytime. They have
to concede that these "averages" are variable, but we are only
allowed to know the annual or decadal ones, which they can try
to argue can be used to modify their conclusions.
The next simplifying assumption is that the sun shines all the
time, day and night , with one quarter of its peak intensity.
This is a fatal assumption, because diurnal variability is not
only very great, it is a step function, with zero for half the
time, so no plausible average is even possible. It is surely
obvious that the climate is different between day and night,
let alone between a cloudy day and a clear day.
Then it is assumed that the surface of the earth is isolated
from the earth itself. This is obviously wrong. The earth
exchanges heat with the atmosphere, and with the earth below.
There are attempts to measure the heat in the ocean but even
that is futile because the ocean does happen to be very large,
and it is quite capable of exchange of heat with the ocean
floor. There is a grudging admission that there is convection
and exchange of latent heat of water, but the figures they
assume are little more than guesswork. There is also an
assumption there is no input of heat from the earth itself,
which is, after all, very hot in the centre. Nobody knows how
many underwater volcanoes may be supplying heat.
Finally, there is an assumption that energy entering must
equal energy leaving. Every geologist knows that this wrong,
from the earth's history. It is ridiculous to choose an
arbitrary period, such as since 1700, or since 1978 when such
a "balance" is possible. It is never possible.
The system is not in equilibrium and none of the laws of
thermodynamics apply because it is a system with a constant
external energy supply and is therefore a perpetual motion
machine. All forms of energy on earth, except that which comes
internally, derive from the sun, whether it is chemical,
electrical, ordinary heat, radiative heat or work. This
includes any radiative exchange in the atmosphere, in whatever
direction.
It is a commentary on the current level of scientific
education that so many people who should know better have
accepted this model: even you and many of your friends.
There is a place for simplifying assumptions, if they work.
After all, Newton did not even know that he was assuming that
the motions of atoms and molecules in his solids had to cancel
out before his equations could work. The fact that they do
work does not prove that his assumptions are always right.
Einstein showed that they do not apply to very high speeds.
But Einstein's treatment assumed that it would be possible for
travel back in time. As Hawking says "We have no tourists from
the past" so it must be wrong.
The IPCC climate model does not work. The temperature is not
rising, The temperature in the lower troposphere cannot be
predicted. Even the flawed "temperature anomaly record" can
only be simulated if you leave out urban effects and ALL the
ocean oscillations. Our knowledge of natural changes is
insufficient to explain everything that happens. Humans
undoubtedly influence the climate by altering atmospheric
convection, evaporation and condensation of water, urban and
land changes, It is possible that emissions of water vapour as
well as minor "greenhouse" gases also have an influence, but
their influence is unlikely to be revealed by such an absurd
model of the climate.
Back
to top of page >>>
5
July 11
The "Partnership" Fallacy
By
Reuben Chapple
The
new Auckland Council has a Maori Statutory Board made up of
nine unelected Maori members with full voting rights on all
committees. This body should never have been allowed to come
into being. It is simply a job-creation scheme and an
instrument of legal plunder for a localised Anglo-Maori
kleptocracy.
Yet we are told repeatedly that such
political representation is a constitutional, as well as a
moral, requirement.
The first elephant in the room is that
the so-called “Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840.
Most of those slef-identifying as "Maori" actually
have more of the blood of the colonisers than of the
colonised. All have at least some European ancestry.
The second elephant wrecking the china is
that even had Maori remained a discrete ethnic group, separate
representation at any level of government is based on an
incorrect interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. Under this
set of assumptions, the Crown is in “partnership” with
both a collective “Maori” and with individual Maori tribes
deemed to hold mana whenua or “chiefly authority” over a
particular locality.
The “partnership” fallacy is based on
an erroneous decision of the Court of Appeal in a 1987 case
involving the NZ Maori Council. It rests upon what researcher
Alan Everton describes as “nothing more than the opinion of
five judges who combined a lamentable ignorance of New Zealand
history with a willingness to ignore the Constitutional
principle that they were appointed to apply the law, not make
it.”
The Lange Labour Government's artfully
sketchy references to “the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi” in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 then
allowed activist judges to fabricate the nonsense that the
Treaty’s black letter clauses created “something akin to a
partnership.”
Article I ceded sovereignty to the Crown
“absolutely and without reservation.”
Article II protects existing property
rights under the sovereign power acknowledged as henceforth
prevailing in Article I. It guarantees: “Te tino
rangatiratanga/full authority over their lands, forests,
fisheries and other property [the correct translation of this
word in 1840]” not just to the chiefs but to “ki nga
tangata katoa o Niu Tirani,” that is “to all the people of
New Zealand.”
Only by dishonestly ignoring the words
“to all the people of New Zealand” does “tino
rangatiratanga” becomes a claim that under the Treaty, Maori
tribes retained their sovereignty, thus becoming
“partners” with the Crown in some kind of
sovereignty-sharing relationship.
Article III further undermines this
position in granting to “the Natives” (not just to the
chiefs) “all the rights and privileges of British
subjects.” Clearly, individual Maori could not enjoy such
rights yet continue to be ruled in tribal style by chiefs.
There can be no possibility that the
Treaty of Waitangi created a Crown-Maori “partnership” or
perpetual group rights for New Zealanders of Maori descent.
Having signed the Treaty, the chiefs became not “partners”
but subjects of the Crown, as did all other Maori.
As subjects of the Crown — that is New
Zealand citizens — today’s Anglo-Maori are entitled to the
same rights as everyone else. In terms of political
representation at any level of government, this means the
right to stand as a candidate, the right to vote for a
preferred candidate, and the right to make individual or
collective submissions to elected representatives and public
bodies.
The assumptions behind Ngati Whatua mana
whenua representation on the Auckland Council are similarly
flawed. It is often falsely asserted that Ngati Whatua
“gifted” the land on which Auckland City now stands to the
Crown, thus entitling them to be involved on an ongoing basis
in running the city.
The land was not “gifted” at all, but
sold to the Crown for cash and goods. Once something is sold,
it’s gone for good, and the seller has no further claim over
it. In any event, like so many early land sales, Ngati
Whatua’s claims to ownership at the time of sale are tenuous
at best.
Ngati Whatua were not the first occupants
of the Auckland area. Originally based further north, they
colonised the locality around 1750 by exterminating its former
occupants, Te Waiohua.
What goes around comes around. In the
1820s, the Tamaki Isthmus was repeatedly invaded by
musket-toting Ngapuhi from Northland. The Encyclopaedia of New
Zealand records that as a result: “much of the isthmus was
abandoned as tribes sought shelter in the Tainui region.”
Historian, RCJ Stone, notes: “fear of
Ngapuhi prevented them [Ngati Whatua] from occupying their old
home for many years afterwards, indeed, not until Auckland was
founded [in 1840] did they feel safe.”
Ngati Whatua thus “sold” to the Crown
land they’d cravenly vacated more than a decade before. Land
they neither occupied nor controlled in any meaningful sense.
This placed the Governor and his troops between Ngati Whatua
returnees and renewed hostilities from Ngapuhi. Payment from
the Crown also underscored to neighbouring tribes that the
mana of the land remained with Ngati Whatua.
While a clever stroke of business from
both a practical and a Maori perspective, this hardly supports
Aucklanders of Anglo-Ngati Whatua descent enjoying special
political representation, even if this could be justified
under the Treaty of Waitangi, which as we have seen it cannot.
Back
to top of page >>>
26
June 11
Government Needs to Lead on Marriage
By
Gordon Copeland
It seemed like the whole world stopped on Friday the 29th of
April to watch the marriage of Prince William and Catherine
Middleton. I know my wife Anne and I sat transfixed as we
watched on television (along we are told with about 2 billion
others) the radiantly happy couple commit to one another in an
open display of their love.
There is a beauty in marriage which resonates with the human
spirit. Guests at the wedding took along some tissues because
they knew from experience that nuptials touch our hearts and
our spirits.
Within our culture marriage is irreplaceable. It is the most
public way of displaying the depth of our love for our chosen
one. It is the most deliberate way of starting a family so
that our children will have the best possible start in life.
I believe that expenditure by government on marriage
preparation and marriage enrichment is an investment which
will pay dividends, both in a more successful nation and in
savings to the taxpayer.
Longitudinal studies show that in every culture on the face of
the earth, children raised by married couples have, on
average, the best outcomes in health, education, and income
and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice
system. The presence of a father in the home is also critical,
and the surest way of ensuring that happens is for him to be
committed to the mother in marriage!
Our culture is no exception. The sharp drop in the marriage
rate, coupled with the increase in separation and divorce
which have characterised our society over the last 30 years or
so, is directly linked to the epidemic of fatherless, child
abuse and crime statistics which now bedevil our society.
I believe that re-building a marriage culture is imperative,
if our claim that New Zealand is the best country in the world
in which to marry and raise a family - a claim which was
backed up by our social and criminal statistics in the 1950s
and 1960s - is ever to be reclaimed.
Of course government alone cannot achieve that goal. All of us
and especially parents and teachers need to get involved. But
government can and should take the lead. It has the power to
reach right across our society to Maori, European, Pacifica,
Asian and all the other ethnic groups which provide the rich
tapestry of today’s New Zealand.
Government can change education so that marriage features in
the sex education curriculum and is esteemed as the ideal in
all aspects of school life. It can provide financial and
educational resources. Importantly it can, if needs be, change
the law!
Religious, iwi and other third sector organisations also have
a vital role to play. Indeed without them it would be near
impossible for government to deliver marriage preparation and
marriage enrichment courses, at the coal face.
Confronted with our appalling criminal and social statistics
the re-establishment of a marriage culture is, I believe, the
most vital ‘fence at the top of the cliff’ cultural initiative
which our nation could take at this time. Not only will it
(over time) turn those negative statistics around, but it will
also lead to a more prosperous and happier country for us all.
Gordon Copeland is a former MP and the President of the Kiwi
Party. He and his wife Anne have 5 children, nine
grandchildren and a great-grandson. They have been married for
47 years and live in Wellington.
Back
to top of page >>>
22
June 11
Why are we paying a carbon tax?
By
Donald Offwood
In terms of the science of climate change, I am a layman, but
the questions are simple, so a layman should find easy
answers. The IPCC has had many learned scholars gather and
present their conclusions as to the involvement of human
generated CO2 in the science of climate change and many other
learned scholars have held opposing views. Indeed, in August
2009 Dr Vincent Gray of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel
said, ‘There are no plausible arguments currently available
which support the view that human greenhouse emissions are
having a detectable influence on the climate.’
CO2 is a trace element, about 0.038% of our air, which is
essential to the production of all vegetation and food;
without it all plants would disappear and we would die very
quickly. CO2 is not a problem nor a pollutant; it is an
essential gas to our survival. A good argument can be made for
increasing CO2 to encourage crop and food production.
The CO2 concentration when the world’s coal and oil were being
laid down was 10 times as high as they are now, so the level
fluctuates naturally. Has CO2 had anything to do with climate
change over the centuries? No, but the climate has certainly
changed, both warmer and colder. Natural CO2 is about 97%
while man-made CO2 is about 3%, which is within the margin of
error for the CO2 production of naturally rotting vegetation
worldwide. It is hard to understand how we have caused any
problem and impossible to see how taxing ourselves will solve
it.
Tony Robinson recently presented an excellent TV show on Nat
Geo Man on Earth in which he traces some of the earlier
civilisations and follows what happened to them when the
climate changed, without any input from mankind at all.
The warming of the world thousands of years ago apparently
released the water contained in a Canadian lake which raised
the sea level of the Atlantic and Mediterranean about a metre.
This water washed over the natural weir about where Istanbul
is now in 5600BC and the Black Sea was flooded. There was no
man made CO2 involved.
About the same time the Sahara was green and occupied by an
agrarian civilisation. A very sudden climate change forced
them to migrate to the Nile River valley where they became the
highly civilised Egyptians within 1,000 years. There was no
man made CO2 involved.
The Mayan civilisation of Central America had a very
sophisticated civilisation in 900 AD, until the climate dried
a touch and their tropical paradise dried and withered, along
with their civilisation. There was no man made CO2 involved.
Similarly, the Pueblo Indians of Mesa Verda, Colorado
supported a large population until the climate changed in
1260AD and they died or moved on. There was no man made CO2
involved.
The early Norse (Vikings) migrants to Greenland had a
successful farming lifestyle until the climate cooled about
1500 AD and the crops failed, followed by the disappearance of
the Norse settlements. There was no man made CO2 involved.
The Medieval Warm Period, from 950 – 1250AD saw crops
flourish, such that grapes were grown as far north as the
Scottish border with England, such abundance supporting a
growing population and giving rise to the great cathedrals of
the area. There was no man made CO2 involved.
That time of abundance was followed by the Little Ice Age,
when the climate of England was so cold that the Thames
regularly froze over and the inhabitants of London built small
dwellings on the river and had ice fairs! That lasted until
about 1850 and then the climate started a warming cycle all by
itself. There was no man made CO2 involved. This natural
warming cycle peaked in 1998 and we have as a world been
either stable or cooling by 0.1 degree for the last 13 years.
The warming is over.
Although only an aircraft engineer and airline pilot, I
attended a lecture a few years ago at the University of
Canterbury and I naively hoped to find an answer to my
question, ‘If man had not contributed to the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age, why do you suggest with
religious fervour that we have caused the warming since 1850?’
I was dismissed with a statement from the stage that, ‘the
science is settled.’ It is not settled for most New
Zealanders. It was a simple question and remains unanswered.
A recent NZ radio poll had only 18% of us believing we have
caused the world to yet again turn its natural cycle. Now that
the infamous hockey graph of Dr Mann has been discredited and
the ‘correction’ of data from East Anglia and other
institutions is made public, what the hell is going on?
Let’s keep it simple, the graphs of CO2 change and world
temperature bear no resemblance to each other. In fact, any
temperature rise follows an increase in CO2. The graphs of
sunspot activity and climate change, both warmer and cooler,
beer an exact correlation. If a layman can see that, why does
our government follow the UN dictate and impose carbon taxes
on us to try and fix this non-existent problem?
A cynic might suggest that all governments love to scare us
and then provide the solution and tax us along the way. There
is also a story about, that it was all started by UK Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, when she needed a way to curb the
extreme demands of the coalminers, who fed the coal fired
power plants. One Scandinavian scientist had suggested that
there might be a link between man made CO2 and the warming of
the world. (0.7degrees over the 20th century) the story goes
that she grasped at this idea and went to the Royal Society
with a pot of gold and asked them to prove the link, which
would allow her to establish nuclear power stations and so
step around the militant coalminers. Communism was collapsing
at the same time and all these left thinking intellectuals who
had supported the concept of communism had no where to go
intellectually. As the Berlin wall was torn down they moved
quickly to the new hammer with which to beat capitalism. The
UN is of course a hot bed of left wing politicians and so the
IPCC developed via the Kyoto protocol.
If we are on the edge of total catastrophe as Al Gore in his
An Inconvenient Truth would have it, then perhaps the facts
would support the theory, which has been around for some time
now.
Has the sea level risen world wide? No, according to Dr
Nils-Axel Morner, a member of the IPCC review committees. It
fluctuates within a few millimetres of its long time mean.
After 35 years of study by measurement, not computer
modelling, he has found ‘absolutely no trend, no rise’ in the
Maldives, Tuvalu, Vanuatu or anywhere else in the world. By
long term measurement and observation, the sea levels are not
rising.
In Hong Kong and Venice the sea level is rising at a measured
rate due to the subsidence of those cities. The average change
world wide, up or down, is minuscule and it has nothing to do
with man made CO2. It is related to the natural expansion of
the oceans as we came out of the Little Ice Age, but that is
now over.
Should we be trying to develop alternative and sustainable
fuels, yes, but that has nothing to do with climate change; it
is just a good idea anyway. Should we be worrying about global
warming, no, because the actual record, not the computer
models, shows the earth has entered a cooling cycle, which is
predicted to last some decades. The sun has had the quietest
period of sun spot activity for a very long time, so we cool
and the oceans contract.
Can we tax ourselves and make any difference, no, absolutely
futile. Can we try to adapt to a cooling climate, yes; that
would be worth while. A change of crops perhaps, take less
agricultural risks involving long hot summers as they will not
be so long or hot and out of season storms are more likely.
Now, you don’t have to take my word on all this; I am just a
layman after all, but I still have to pay carbon tax and I
don’t understand why? The damage done to the world economy by
carbon taxes and the ETS schemes will cause far more death and
damage than would ever occur even if AGW theory were true.
Climate change, both up and down, is driven by the sun’s
activity. The main question to keep asking the imposers of
carbon taxes is my simple layman’s one, ‘In times when man was
making miniscule CO2, what caused the Medieval Warm Period and
the Little Ice Age?
Donald Offwood is a retired airline pilot and aircraft
engineer, has written 10 books and stood for the Values Party
in 1978.
Back
to top of page >>>
10
June 11
James
Hansen's Storm in a Teacup
By
Joe Fone - a
member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Climate change will be
“the predominant moral issue of the 21st century”,
declared NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, “comparable to
Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery
faced by Lincoln in the 19th century.”
Excuse me for laughing. So that
makes it quite an issue then. But how could climate change, a
phenomenon that has shaped the planet for four billion years
without our help, suddenly become a “moral issue”,
comparable to manmade catastrophes like Nazism? Will next
century’s “predominant moral issue” be the phases of the
Moon? Yes I know, Hansen is saying climate change is also a
manmade catastrophe like Nazism.
So the Earth’s
four-billion-year history must have been one of stable
perfection where nothing changed until the Industrial
Revolution. And then suddenly it’s all over. Four billion
years with no extreme weather events, no floods, no droughts,
no tornadoes, no heat waves, no blizzards, no extinctions, no
drowning polar bears or melting glaciers. Nothing but
perpetually calm weather until mankind threw a spanner in the
works and tipped the planet’s biosphere into a death spiral
by becoming hooked on carbon. And now apparently we have a
“carbon habit” that’s so out of hand, Australian Climate
Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery believes there is no hope
to save the planet even if we quit now. He argues “the
average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in
several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years”
even if we start tomorrow. So the “tipping point” just
arrived.
But whatever bee was under
Hansen’s bonnet when he made his unlikely declaration, the
news media no longer seem to be buying it, at least not as a
hot news-worthy item. Despite hysterical arm waving by Hansen,
Flannery, Gore and others of their esteemed ilk who declare
global warming to be the biggest moral issue of the century,
it never seems to feature in any daily news bulletins by the
mainstream media. If it’s that big a deal, why not? Of
course, just to keep the flames of alarm alive, there are
plenty of fatalistic articles elsewhere declaring the
impending climate disaster is “EVEN WORSE THAN WE
THOUGHT!” (again!), but it is never actually in the news as
an item of great and urgent import, say, alongside the War on
Terror.
Why isn’t Hansen’s climate
“catastrophe” front page news; the main item every night
with a lead-in like “Latest developments on the on-going
global warming crisis...” or “BREAKING NEWS: Global
warming crisis deepens as average global temperatures rise
another 0.01oC and atmospheric CO2 increases another
0.001%!”? I mean, it IS a “crisis” right? That’s what
Al Gore calls it. So it must be extremely urgent. Otherwise Al
Gore, Tim Flannery and James Hansen, among others so inclined,
could be accused of exaggerating a storm in a teacup. And they
wouldn’t do that because they have the backing of the IPCC,
an entity of the UN no less. And the IPCC has no political
agendas while the climate scientists who supply them with
their sanitised temperature data are uncorrupted by money,
politics, influence and kudos of any sort that might otherwise
bias their endeavours. A perfect set up for perfect science.
And the Moon is made of green cheese.
If global warming (or
“climate change” or “climate disruption” or whatever
it’s called) is supposed to be the most important issue
facing humanity - more important even than everlasting
conflicts in the Middle East and never ending poverty in
Africa - it would surely make it to the top of the list of
news items to be aired, next to say the global economic
“crisis”. But instead, Hansen’s top-shelf catastrophe is
hardly ever mentioned unless as part of some other event in
passing, quietly shoehorned into a piece on violent tornados
in the American Midwest. The best the news media can do is to
suggest that yesterday’s tornado was probably caused
by “climate change” because it was an extreme weather
event. Like we’ve never had one of those before. No evidence
to back it up of course. Just the suggestion that the two
might somehow be linked in an effort to keep manmade global
warming even remotely newsworthy.
However the alarmists’
problem is the complete lack of empirical evidence that CO2 is
driving the planet’s climate, which they solve by throwing
in a tornado or two. Or a flood. Or a drought. Or a heat wave
in Russia. Or a blizzard in New York. Anything will do because
there’s no actual evidence of any sort. If there were, we
would get to see it. But so far the evidence that mankind is
heating the planet catastrophically with carbon dioxide has
been like the Emperor’s New Clothes. You can’t see it (nor
even admit that you can’t because then you would be a
“denier”) so you just have to take their word for it. You
are morally obliged
to believe it regardless. Which makes it an ethical issue, not
a scientific one. Indeed, Pennsylvania State University’s
Professor Donald A. Brown argues “that ethics requires
acknowledging the links between tornadoes and climate change, despite scientific
uncertainties about increased frequency and intensity of
tornadoes in a warming world.”[1] Ethics requires
it. Not science.
Yet there is no record anywhere
in the world for any time period in history that shows
increasing CO2 causes increasing
temperature, while the entire argument of Hansen and the IPCC
rests on the unproved assumption that it does.[2] And
nearly a million years’ worth of close correlation that temperature
drives CO2 is
completely ignored. Hence my levity at Hansen’s pessimism.
So until someone can come up with demonstrable, empirical
evidence that our CO2 emissions are about to cause a climate
train wreck, the global warming extremists should themselves
be completely ignored or ridiculed.
The alarmists further get
around the problem of no evidence by pointing to computer
models and then charging the sceptics with the responsibility
of proving them wrong. They then dismiss this as the work of
the Devil who is in the pay of “Big Oil”. But if there was
any merit in the science at all, it would have earned the same
respect as other fields of research. It wouldn’t have to be
helped along by politicians and actors and portrayed as a
“moral issue”. There wouldn’t be a need to hide or
delete emails and conflicting data, as suggested in this email
from Prof. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s
Climate Research Unit to Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the
discredited Hockey Stick: “I’m getting hassled by a
couple of people” he writes, “to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that
the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
And in another email, Jones
advises “...don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites
– you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre
and McKitrick?] have been after the CRU station data for
years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act
now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will
hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he
heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model
code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind
that.”
Hide behind a data protection
act? Tom Wigley worried someone might ask for his code? So the
publicly funded “science is settled”, yet they refuse to
show anyone the data that they have every right to see. And if
you ask for it under the Freedom of Information Act, they’ll
just delete it. Clearly nothing to hide there then. Perfect
science and all above board. Just like the IPCC.
No wonder no one believes them.
Even the media have gone cold on it despite the increasing
hyperbole from the likes of Hansen and Flannery and a gaggle
of climate scientists who think it’s all about selling the
message, not what’s in the message. The message itself -
that we’re all going to Hell in a carbon-based handcart - is
carved in stone and no amount of conflicting evidence will
touch it. It has been decreed by higher authority which, as
Galileo discovered, trumps science.
But the impression I get from
this apparent lack of interest by mainstream news media is
that they are finally waking up to the fact that no one cares
or believes it anymore. Nearly every public opinion poll
indicates widespread scepticism where the alarmists are
heavily outnumbered by the sceptics.
That just leaves the truly
dedicated high-flyers like Hansen, Flannery, Gore and their
mates, plus a few politicians and prominent scientists who
have either stuck their necks out on the issue and fear having
to admit they’ve backed the wrong horse, or whose income
depends on perpetuating the myth. No one else gives a damn.
They have trapped themselves in a mythical world of their own
making. But one thing is for sure, these guys would be great
as stand-up comedians.
Footnotes:
1. Italics added. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/climate-craziness-of-the-week-ethics-requires-linking-tornadoes-to-climate-change
.Dr.
Timothy Ball
(http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005)
Back
to top of page >>>
27
October
10
13 Percent of Fathers Who Apply For Custody Get It.
I'm One.
By Brent Matches
The belief that the Family Court is there to support children
and parents is a fallacy. It has become little more than a
cash cow for lawyers, judges and social workers who prey on
separation of the child for their own personal financial
benefit. Sure, there are some lawyers and social workers with
a genuine interest in what is best for the child, but the
system is geared to financially reward those Family Court
agents who identify problems.
The fact that 400,000 children go home every night to a
fatherless home is testament to social engineering on a grand
scale which has been allowed to continue aggressively under
the Labour government for the last nine years.
How has this been allowed to happen you may ask? Let me
explain, for what purpose does this serve. Mayhem, and control
by the state to control it's citizens by increasing the
underclass who become dependent on the state for welfare,
depriving fathers the opportunity to be a part of their
children's lives through child support, thereby not being able
to see them through the state making one parent responsible
for the financial affairs of the children and the mother.
It is a widely known that once a mother gets on the DPB she
has a hand out for life so long as she remains the primary
care giver. How does this work? For a start, you need to make
sure the father gets no more than 141 days a year and is
responsible for child support. A woman can earn with two
dependent children upwards of $600 a week on the DPB. Why
would any person want to come off that gravy train?
My experience of four years is indeed an insight into how the
system destroys families and, in particular, children and
fathers who commit suicide at an alarming rate. A while back I
got a hold of Mike McRoberts from TV3 in the foyer and hit him
up for some hard answers. His reply was "We are not allowed to
deal with anything that involves the Family Court." It is true
that Judges' make pervasive suppression orders over most of
what occurs in the Family Courts. But our children and fathers
are dying. The fourth estate in New Zealand is content to
fiddle while Rome burns.
The most crucial element to obtain control of the child, or
children, is to ensure that the mother claims custody thus
claim to child support. The next step is to punish the father
by way of making access difficult or lay claim to child abuse
- or worse, sexual contact - and failing this, false
allegations of assault. I have had to overcome all of the
above in my battle to see my son. While doing this, and
following up with application after application, his mother's
lawyers stalled for time when we got into court. Domestic
Violence Orders are an effective tool in neutralising fathers.
Mine was like many cases, where the custodial parent ratcheted
up allegations of antagonistic behaviour by the aggrieved and
loving father to the point where it takes superhuman strength
to suppress the instinct of retaliation. In comes the
court-appointed lawyer for the child, and you are now being
interviewed by psychologists and psychiatrists who have an
uncanny ability to sum you up after one two-hour visit. This
opinion is put before the courts, ensuring the process can
take up to two years before resolution.
My interview was done by a motherless lesbian. Most loving
fathers by this time have been destroyed, give up the fight
and submit to a meager existence because the soul and spirit
have been broken by the Family Court and its processes.
They can no longer afford lawyers bills, the stress of the
fighting and trying to maintain an orderly existence and see
the children and maintain child support. Many leave the
country or have nothing to do with their kids. The children
are never taken into account. In my son's case, he was
kidnapped by his mother for 31 days before I got into court.
Now I believe firmly this was done with express consent of her
lawyer so that I would react and snatch him from his mother's
house - as he was taken from his daycare and not returned.
My son had no contact with me at all during this time. After
making applications to have a Protection Order placed on me
and applying for supervised visits at a Barnados centre of
only two hours a week, his mother followed up by visiting the
Police Station in Newmarket 14 days after the alleged assault.
The problem was, there wasn't an assault. The long and short
was I obtained shared care 50/50, and the mother spent in
excess of $30-40,000 on a lawyer keeping a child away from a
loving father. Lawyer for Child are leeches and are paid huge
sums of money to act in the interests of the child. However,
they act in the interests of the financial benefits of
prolonging situations that keep them employed. I know one
Lawyer who has fifty clients. Could one woman possibly work in
the best interests of all of these families or is she just
clipping the ticket?
I believe if we look at statistics today we can correlate much
of the social fabric breaking down due to lack of fathering,
dependent mothers and the morally wrong approach of more
children means more state aid and who cares who the father is!
Judge Peter Boshier is a hypocrite. He enjoys fostering
women's meetings, when in reality children have been misplaced
and left to their own devises to survive the horror of family
court incompetence. Why are they hypocrites, well they destroy
lives Monday to Friday and go church on Sunday to be pious and
conceited in that they think they have made a difference, tell
that to the tax payer who is covering the $600 million for all
these up and coming criminals who never got the chance for a
decent caring father.
I got my son and I made a difference to a child's life. I am
not about to stop there.
Back
to top of page >>>
19
October
10
Treaty of Waitangi Misrepresentation
By Kerry Butler
The problem with the Treaty Agreement is that Maoris tend to
interpret it as giving greater advantages to them. The
Agreement did specify certain special ‘rights’ to Maori … such
as traditional (customary) fishing.
But, the Treaty was written at a time when Maori were still a
primitive race and needed unrestricted access to their
traditional food in order to survive.
That archaic concept has long since been replaced by a Welfare
system. So, those special rights (needs) are no longer
relevant.
Maori should have to choose between their racially based
rights ... or the privilege of Welfare. One or the other. Not
both.
The actual intention of the Treaty was primarily to ensure
equality and fairness in an agreed “partnership.” But, because
the Maori perception of Tangata Whenoua gives them the
controlling right (they must be consulted before anything much
can be done in this country – not to mention being paid a
sweetener for giving the go-ahead on certain projects) they
have now developed an attitude of superiority!
Some Maori believe the foreshore should be their's of right.
An example of this attitude was seen recently when a crowd of
Maoris arrived at a beach and set up camp on a road reserve
right beside a ‘no camping’ sign. When the Council Warden told
them they weren’t allowed to camp there, they responded that
they could camp anywhere they liked at any beach – because
Maori are the rightful owners of the foreshore.
This attitude can cause friction. I remember going to a beach
where Maori claimed ownership ... and they had someone sitting
on a box at the entrance demanding money to enter.
I can relate a couple of stories here as examples of the
attitude that has been allowed to develop over the 'Treaty
mindset' – and how Maori are trying to use it to their
advantage.
One classic example was the time I saw a vehicle driving
across my farm ... and when I went to investigate ... here was
a Maori guy standing in a creek in the middle of my farm,
trying to catch eels.
When I told him he should ask permission before entering other
people's private land, he replied that he didn't need to, as
the Treaty of Waitangi gave him the right to catch eels.
I informed him that he did indeed have the right to fish in
the major rivers, where there's a Queens Chain. Just as every
citizen of this country has. But no agreement or law exists
that a gives anyone the right to catch eels in small streams
on private property.
His attitude didn't diminish though because — here he was
standing in the middle of the creek — and he belligerently
points to the water and says .... “So who owns this then”? I
informed him that the Crown owns all water in this country.
I went on to say that he knew very well he was in the wrong
when he drove his car across the paddocks of my farm. I then
suggested he consider how he would have reacted if he had
caught someone blatantly walking around the back-yard of his
house.
Another time we were staying at the beach, and late one night
a Maori family drove in and asked if they could park on my
section and sleep there for the night.
I enquired as to why on earth I should allow complete
strangers to camp on my lawn. They then turned nasty and said
.... “What about the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Recently, a big truck with a hy-ab crane on it arrived at a
beach and loaded up with beautiful, big, perfectly round
rocks. These rare boulders were a feature of this beach. But
when one of the locals informed them that it was against the
law to remove rocks from the beach ... the guy in the truck
said he was allowed to take them to sell ... because he was
Maori.
The absurdness of this biased attitude was demonstrated quite
graphically when it was deemed necessary to use weed spray on
invasive Raupo reeds which were choking out the margins of a
lake. And even though no part of this lake or the surrounding
land was in Maori ownership – the PC mentality had it that
Maori must be consulted. Know-one really knows why in a
situation like this.
But anyway, at the first meeting – which was one of a series –
which for some reason had to be held at a Marae – for which a
fee had to be paid ... the Maoris announced that they would
not allow any spraying because it might kill native insects
living in the Raupo.
By the next meeting they must have been given better advice
... because insects were never mentioned again – but now the
emphasis was on the fact of the Raupo being their traditional
weaving or thatching material.
The irony about them claiming the Raupo to be so precious that
it must be protected ... was that the guy representing the Iwi
admitted to someone after one of these meetings that he hadn't
actually realised there was any Raupo growing in this lake!
Even though he had driven past it every day of his life. There
it had been, in full view – but he had never been interested
enough to even notice it. Yet now that it had become an issue
... he suddenly developed a deep emotional and spiritual
attachment to it.
Needless to say, the Raupo is still there ... causing the lake
to silt up, and become a muddy eyesore.
Much of this carry-on is really all just about control (power)
and abusing their position of influence.
Another classic example was the time I was building a house on
a coastal bush-block up North ... and part of the Consent
process involved notifying local Iwi — even though they didn't
own any neighboring land. Furthermore, I was not felling any
bush or doing any earthworks whatsoever. There was a
house-site already cleared ... and all the roading had been
done long ago. But the PC Brigade insisted that I must follow
the procedure. So I arranged to meet the Iwi representative at
the local Marae.
When I arrived, I politely introduced myself and handed him
the relevant paper-work for signing. I then explained that I
wasn't from the area, and hadn't been aware of this
requirement up until then ... so I would really appreciate it
if he could possibly have it done within the next week or two
because the builders were ready to start – and if there was a
hold-up, they would have to go to another job – in which case
I wouldn't get them back for several months. This guy replied
.... “Well that's too bad, you'll just have to wait.”
The worst part about this humiliation was the fact that I was
at their mercy ... so couldn't say what I thought about him
and his attitude.
It would appear that the pendulum has swung too far the Maori
way, not only creating unrealistic expectations, but also
allowing arrogance to creep in.
Many Maori Tribes obviously had a genuine grievance – most of
which have been, or are in the process of being settled.
That’s all fair enough – but the only trouble is, I can
imagine that in the future, the next generation will claim
that the ‘full and final payments’ were not enough, so will
start a whole new claim process based on being ripped-off in
the original Treaty compensation settlement. There are also
likely to be more and more ridiculous things dreamed up such
as ‘air space.’
As far as the Treaty Agreement in general is concerned ... the
endevour to rectify past wrongs, has been been carried out in
good faith ... with the intention of uniting us all ... in
order that we go forward together for the good of our nation
as a whole. The resulting reality appears to be proving the
opposite. It could be suggested that due to the 'Politically
correct' attitude, there may have been an overreaction when
trying to appease Maori – leaving Pakeha seemingly
disadvantaged in certain aspects.
The fact is, Maori have ended up with unintended rights, over
and above other citizens of this country. Hence the number of
people now discovering minuscule Maori heritage in order to
claim priority 'rights.'
If allowed to continue unabated, we could very well find
ourselves in need of a 'Treaty Agreement' to protct the rights
of Pakeha.
The isue of concern at the moment is that of the Foreshore.
The decision to allow property rights which have always been
in Crown (public) ownership ... to be surreptitiously
transferred to one race ... reeks of separatism.
The irony is that Maori must always be consulted over any
issues concerning property ... so why weren't the rest of us
(being the majority in this partnership) consulted in this
case.
The shameful truth of the matter is that the main reason Maori
have pushed so hard for the right to claim ownership over
parts of the foreshore is for their long-term financial
advantage ... AND, the Government have given in to them for
their short-term political advantage.
The blame for this tragic state of affairs must must be
centred on John Key. It would seem that he would give away the
gold out of his Grand-Mother's teeth in order to retain his
personal position of power.
It has been suggested that he used the naïve (but mercenary)
Chris Finlayson to push it through behind our backs. Prime
Minister Key, must be more ruthless than he appears.
The cold, hard fact of the matter is that if MMP did not exist
... then none of this foreshore devisiveness would be
occuring.
Back
to top of page >>>
24
September
10
Multicultural Racism
By Caroline Aurora
I was called a racist again recently, by a person who didn’t
like being challenged on her bad behaviour. In the politically
correct climate in NZ, anyone who speaks out against the
dubious actions of an individual is automatically viewed as
making negative statements about a whole race of people.
Somehow it’s easier to label someone a racist, than to discuss
the issue rationally.
Many of us would agree that racism is an attempt to vilify a
person or group on the basis of their skin colour or
ethnicity. This differs from what the Left identify as
“racism” – something that is structural, rather than
attitudinal. If you’re born white, you’re racist, and
automatically benefit from a social and political system that
gives you lots of stuff, like political power, money,
prestige. Alternatively, according to the Left, Maori can’t be
racist, because they are the victims of white racism. Maori
are the needy alternative – poor, oppressed, sick, victims,
jobless.
This is bollocks. It’s a collectivist viewpoint, and as such
does not take individual behaviour and beliefs into account.
It labels all white folks as racist, and ignores those that
aren’t. Even the white radical friends of the Maori radicals
are defined as racist, by this definition. It’s a definition
that defines all Maori as low-status, regardless of those who
have made a success of their lives. It is a culture of blame,
hatred and lies, turning people against each other. And theft
is the final outcome, as Maori swell the welfare lines, and
Maori authorities make huge benefits from the treaty gravy
train.
How does that work? It’s a pretty lame effort to justify
government stealing my money to appease a vocal minority. But
what about the behaviour of people like the Harawiras? Using
racism as an excuse it just not acceptable. And I can’t help
wondering whether Hone’s kids have any real choice about who
they date.
The Left agrees that racism is not okay, but plays the
politics of blame. It focuses it work on what it calls
Anti-racism – another word for anti-white activism,
guilt-mongering and theft of taxpayer money. And nobody wants
to be labelled a racist any more. Why? Because the label
racist is divisive, turning people into social pariahs and
ruining reputations and careers.
There are plenty of examples of how the Left uses its
definition of racism to the detriment of all of us.
Government-funded courses for the unemployed offer programmes
in bone carving, Te Reo and Tikanga Maori, but their outcomes
are dodgy. We need to question the number of course
participants who get jobs immediately upon completion of a
course like this. But the Left would tell you that these
courses promote culture. Right. A culture of intergenerational
welfare dependence, ghettoisation of the poor, and the
weakening of mana. How does that work?
Degree courses across the board now require students to
regurgitate politically correct anti-racist nonsense, without
a corresponding understanding of alternative viewpoints. I’m
sure Anna Penn, and others who have left NZ looking for a
career, would question how cultural safety is more important
than basic nursing skills.
The charity and NGO sector has also been infiltrated by this
nonsense. A women’s centre I once worked for had a room
defined as women-only. What I couldn’t swallow was that Maori
men were encouraged to enter and use the women-only space, on
the basis that “they are oppressed people too”. Huh? How does
that work?
Literacy Aotearoa, NZ’s leading literacy provider, began life
in the early 1980s under another name, as an umbrella
organisation for literacy schemes all over NZ. Government
funding was originally split equally between Pakeha and Maori,
regardless of the relative membership numbers. Under that
system, Maori tutors and students gained more, per head, than
their non-Maori counterparts.
Maori and Pakeha anti-racist activists decided they wanted to
make it a “Treaty-based” organisation. Which they did,
creating an organisation based on maori culture and refusing
funding to those schemes who disagreed with the new way of
working. This meant that many clients missed out on the
literacy assistance they needed. A number of staff refused to
work with the new organisational structure and left, their
characters assassinated and careers in literacy gone.
The obscenity is clear. And the public sector is no better.
While the government spends millions on the Ministry of
Women’s Affairs, Josie Bullock lost her job as a probation
officer because she challenged Maoridom’s sexism, and ended up
driving a bus in Wellington. Talent wasted.
The Treaty of Waitangi allows Maori equal rights and status
with Europeans. No more, no less. It does not excuse the
misuse of taxpayer money, however that misuse might be
“justified”. Neither does it excuse the use of taxpayer money
for weight-loss surgery in the name of Maori education,
overseas holidays with your missus, or expensive underpants.
Clearly the anti-racist definition doesn’t cut the mustard in
terms of providing a real solution to racism. Not all Maori
are racist, and not all Maori support the radical fringe. What
is clear is that the Left, in its quest for political power,
has infiltrated many sectors of public and private life, and
has an agenda based on lies. It undermines traditional decency
and morality, replacing it with its own victimology and
legislation.
So is there a solution? I believe there is. In my ideal world,
entrenched guilt will no longer an issue. People will be free
to challenge bad behaviour, without the risk of losing their
career, or being labelled a racist.
Clearly legislation hasn’t fixed anything. “Hate crimes” still
happen. Sexism and racism are still rife. And in the meantime
there is no accountability from a system that allows these
abuses to happen.
The solution to racism is for people of intelligence to see
that racism is collectivist nonsense. It is systematic and
allows all means of evil, aided and abetted by government. By
contrast, individualists are not racist, rather choosing to
see each person as a self-governing individual, responsible
for his or her own actions.
Rights go hand-in-hand with responsibility. It’s easy to
demand free access to welfare, but welfare on its own fixes
nothing. The Ratana people got it right – take responsibility
for yourself and your own people first. When communities work
together to create solutions to problems, there will be little
need for excuses and name-calling.
Will anyone take notice of my idealism? I would hope so. But I
have to ask whether Helen Clark really appreciated being
bullied and silenced by Titewhai Harawira. Somehow I doubt it.
Back
to top of page >>>
11
September
10
Whanau Fascism or Iwiism?
By
Michael Palmer
Fascism is from the word 'fasces' a bundle of rods wrapped
round an axe carried by the magistrates in ancient Rome as a
symbol of power and authority. It symbolised strength in unity
as opposed to a single rod which can easily break. The basic
concept of Fascism, as established by Mussolini, was an
absolute state under which individuals are subordinated. The
party elite under an unquestioned leader restores order to the
nation and leads it to greatness.
As Robert Paxton states in his book 'Fascism'; 'Fascism seeks
out in each national culture those themes that are best
capable of mobilising a mass movement of regeneration,
unification, and purity, directed against liberal
individualism and constitutionalism.. The themes that appeal
to fascists in one cultural tradition may seem simply silly to
another.'
Despite the cosmetic differences of the axis powers the
fascist, anti individual, communal ideal was common to all and
the word became associated with their tyrannical
totalitarianism, militarism and genocide. Due to the revulsion
that these states engendered in the free (or freer) world it
became a very derogatory term.
After the war the term fascist was commonly misused by
Marxists and other communal cultists to prevent rational
inquiry and debate. Marxism is an irrational belief in natural
forces, which shape history and economies. The state and its
all knowing elite control these forces by dictating and
micromanaging every aspect of society through a process called
dialectical materialism. A dictionary defines this as “the
economic, political and philosophical system developed by Marx
and Engels, based on the idea of constant change through a
dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis”.
Canadian historian and writer Craig Read explains “The
dialectical impulses underpinning the creation of such systems
can only be demystified by agents of brilliance and leaders
with insight. Free will, individualism and modernity have no
place in such a scheme of thinking. Fate is pre-determined to
a large extent by the movement of impersonal matter forming
new realities. By obeying the cult which has the right
prescriptions to both understand and manage these
dialecticisms, the individual human might find salvation,
worth and communal power.”
By modernity he means technological progress, wealth creation
and creativity. Fascisms can only survive and prosper through
war, theft and taxation. They are in essence societal
justifications for slavery. There nature is parasitic. Marxism
is merely another variety of fascism.
Some of the key elements of fascism identified by Robert
Paxton, Craig Read and other writers are as follows -
1. Leader and elite control.
2. Ideology as propaganda not reality.
3. Cult pretending to be divinely inspired.
4. Terror and control.
5. Racism/Supremacism/Universalism.
6. Cross-Class appeal.
7. Economic Autarchy.
8. Hatred of individualism and liberalism.
9. War and domination.
10. Rigidity and inevitable collapse
Fascism is opportunistic and requires a fertile soil. I
believe that in NZ we have allowed four destructive
interrelated fascisms to incubate.
1. Ecofascism. - Global warming taxes, RMA and building
restrictions. Greens
2. Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness.-Media and
education propaganda
3. Bureaucratism – Govt growth, regs, safety police, corporate
and personal welfare
4.Whanauism – tribalism, racialism, gangs, extortion,
corruption
Our politicians have actively encouraged this. Labour to
further its Marxist/Feminist ideology and National to appease
the Greens, the Bureacrats and the Whanauists and thereby deny
Labour their support. As per the infamous Chamberlain/Hitler
promise of “Peace in our time” appeasement only encourages
fascisms to grow stronger until a point is reached where
capitulation or a bloody confrontation occurs. As is generally
recognised if Hitler had been confronted earlier when his weak
armies marched into the Rhine, Austria or Czechoslovakia there
would have been no major war.
Whanau Fascism is real. It can be analyzed as per the ten
elements mentioned above. Its racialism, hatred and strident
demands for sovereignty and tribute are growing.
Fascism is not a modern concept. As a societal construct it
dates back to the dawn of civilization. It is the defining
characteristic of Moslem theocracies and many books exploring
its universality have been recently written. In addition to
Robert Paxton I recommend Craig Read “Fascism and Paganism”,
David Horowitz “Unholy Alliance” and Thomas Sowell “Barbarians
Inside the Gate”. Three excellent movies dramatising the
subject also spring to mind – Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto”,
“Max”about the early rise of Hitler and “300”.
Back
to top of page >>>
15
August 10
Representative means what?
By
Larry Baldock
What english dictionary are they using in our House of
Representatives?
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word representative as “a
person who has been chosen to speak or vote for somebody else
or on behalf of a group.”
So what is it our elected ‘representatives’ don’t understand
about speaking and voting for somebody else or on our behalf?
Their reluctance yet again to carry out the wishes of the vast
majority of Kiwis, concerned about the devastation caused by
alcohol abuse in this country, is just another example in a
long list of issues our ‘representatives’ refuse to act upon
on our behalf. I would be the first to agree that dealing with
alcohol is not all about a zero blood alcohol level while
driving. Given the amount of alcohol being consumed and its
easy availability, it could even be a pointless gesture if it
was not connected with implementing all the other important
recommendations of the Law Commission Review.
Take the drinking age for example. Even before the lowering of
the drinking age in 1999 there was strong opposition to that
foolish move, and for many years now there has been a clear
majority of NZ voters calling for it to be raised again.
Sadly, however, no one can seriously entertain any hope that
this Government, on its current track record, will do the
right thing and stand up to the powerful alcohol lobby.
We were told the Government was prepared to look at mining in
a tiny percentage of the Conservation Estate, land that
belongs to all New Zealanders and that could release an
estimated $100 billion of export potential to help improve the
financial prospects of ordinary Kiwis. But no, our
representatives caved in very quickly to another powerful
lobby just because they are capable of organising and funding
public campaigns.
Mining in the Conservation Estate, the Anti-smacking
legislation, the Emissions Trading Scheme, micro chipping of
dogs, the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy
Council, the signing up to UN Declarations and agreements… and
the list goes on concerning issues that we all as New
Zealanders should have the right to decide on for ourselves by
binding referenda, especially when our elected representatives
no longer seriously represent us.
There is no point hoping, that even on the rare occasion of
MPs being given a conscience vote, we will see any better
outcomes. Helen Clerk was a master at working behind the
scenes on so-called conscience issues so that she was
confident there were enough votes to pass her social
engineering agenda while maintaining the pretext of free
conscience voting. It now seems that her successor was a
diligent student of hers while he sat on the other side of the
house and watched.
Latest polling results show a majority dissatisfied with our
current electoral system, much of which stems from the almost
universally held belief by voters that our politicians will
ignore those who voted them into power once they take their
privileged seats in the House of Representatives.
Let’s face it, any system of government that allows the
rejection of 84% of the expressed will of the people cannot be
called representative in anyone’s estimation. Until we fix
that problem we will continue to be dissatisfied with our
democracy, no matter what issue is being debated in the public
square.
Back
to top of page >>>
5
July
10
Child Abuse on the Rise
By
David Hill
No matter how hard the Minister of Social Welfare, Paula
Bennett, tries to dismiss the huge rise in reported
notifications of children needing help, as “better reporting”
you can’t hide the fact that we in Clean Green and idyllic New
Zealand are abusing our kids by an average of 14 per hour
every day, and that’s just the reported incidents.
The facts; in 2005 there were 40,000 registered reports, this
year it’s projected to be over 125,000. The reports are called
“Notifications” that’s sanitized speak for abuse including
beatings, grievous bodily harm, intimidation, sexual attacks
and kids being witness to violent antisocial behaviour.
What has happened to us as a people and nation that a large
section of our society apparently have no compulsion in
abusing our children with acts that were once associated with
concentration camps.
I will offer some clues.
The large acceptance and promotion of a drug culture where
it’s okay to smoke dope, the “Gateway” drug that often leads
onto other more insidious drugs like P. In NZ we are amongst
the world’s largest users of P a drug known to cause psychotic
behavior and associated violence and what do we do about it,
judging by the sentences handed out by our courts, very
little. No wonder the low life’s are queuing up to import and
make this drug in our country, we are seen as a soft touch
worth the low risk of being caught and soft penalty’s if you
are. If we had a similar system to some Asian states where the
importation or manufacture of such drugs commands an almost
instant death penalty we wouldn’t have near the problem.
The adoption of a binge drink culture that causes people to
resort to violence and bad behavior, encouraged by the classy
ads and behavior of role models.
The breakdown of the traditional family unit where we have a
large percentage of our children being born and brought up by
solo and very often young parents. Gone are the role models
and sense of responsibility that kids were traditionally
brought up to respect.
The proliferation of violent movies, video games, the gang
culture and acceptance of the denigration of women as mere sex
objects.
There is no respect for our fellow humans anymore and we have
become desensitized by violence to a point where a lot of our
people even treat it as a form of entertainment.
Our welfare system that encourages the abdication of social
and family responsibility.
And finally a weak Government influenced by the PC brigade, to
scared to make the tough decisions.
As I write this over the last hour statistically another 14
kids have been abused, and scared for life.
Until we as citizens and individuals wake up and take action
the figures will get worse and we will continue to make
excuses.
Back
to top of page >>>
18
June 10
Ownership of Rivers, Lakes, Seabed and Foreshore
By
Ross Baker
Ancient history, the Magna Carta, Queen Victoria, British Law
or the Tiriti o Waitangi did not give the ownership of our
rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to Maori, they are held in
“trust” by the Crown for the people of New Zealand. Until it
is proved otherwise, the Crown has no right to give our
rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to one group of New Zealand
Citizens who are no longer the “distinct race of people that
signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”.
Law of Ancient Civilizations
Classical Roman law held that "running water" is "common to
mankind". It is held that, "all rivers and ports are public,
hence the right of fishing, in a port, or in rivers, is common
to all men". It is held that this is one of the "Laws of
Nature" which are "established by divine providence" and which
"remains forever fixed and immutable". It recognizes public
rights to the use of the banks as well as the surface of the
water, on no-navigable as well as navigable rivers. This was
based on the laws of Greece and other ancient civilizations.
These principles continued in the laws of the emerging
European Nations. In England, Kings fenced off some rivers and
their banks, but the Magna Carta reaffirmed public rights in
1215. Running water is common to all and all rivers and ports
are public, hence the right to fishing in a port or river is
common. The use of the banks is also public as the rivers.
Spanish law at the time also reflected the law of earlier
civilizations, holding that “everyman has the right to use the
rivers for commerce and fisheries” on navigable and non-
navigable rivers, including the riverbanks. French law also
held that rivers and riverbanks are public things, the use of
which is common to all. Institute of Justinian, 2.1.1; Digest,
43, 12, 1, 1. On the Laws and Customs of England, Henry de
Bracton, 1250. Las Siete Partidasnsa, Alfonsa X 1226. French
Civil Law, Jean Domat, 1694.
In Martin v Waddell, the US Supreme Court held that in
America, as in England, the public has a “liberty of fishing
in the sea or creeks, or arm thereof, in a common of piscary”.
It held that state cannot “abdicate its trust over property in
which the whole people are interested shall not be disposed of
piecemeal to individuals as private property”.
The Law of Nature
The Law of Nature is the only true foundation of all social
rights. The state cannot make a direct and absolute grant of
the waters of the state, divesting all the citizens of their
common rights. Public assess to streams and trails along
streams, is further supported by the legal doctrine of custom
and prescription. Since Government hold waterways in “trust”
for the public, they cannot sell or give them away to private
ownership or control. Waterways are natural highways of the
world.
Queen Victoria’s Instructions
Queen Victoria’s instructions to Governor Hobson in 1840 asked
that places along seacoasts and navigable streams "be reserved
for all recreational and amusement of the inhabitants". The
chiefs gave up their territories to Queen Victoria by Treaty
in 1840 and New Zealand became a British Colony under British
Sovereignty, British Rule/Law.
Tiriti o Waitangi
At a Seabed and Foreshore meeting held in the Otaki Memorial
Hall on the 17th of April 2010, the Hon Christopher Finlayson,
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, said in his
opening speech. "At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi,
Maori ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria and New Zealand
became subject to English law and the Magna Carta”.
In 1840, New Zealand became a British Colony under British
Rule/Law. Article two of the Tiriti o Waitangi stated, “Ko te
Kaini o Ingaranui ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki
hapu ki tangata katoa o nu Tirani te tino rangantiratanga o
ratou wenua kainga me o taonga katoa - The Queen confirms and
guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of
New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all
their property”. There was no mention of rivers, lakes, seabed
or foreshore in the Tiriti o Waitangi as once it was signed,
these were the property of the Crown held in “trust” for all
the people of New Zealand - since Government hold waterways in
“trust” for the public, they cannot sell or give them away to
private ownership or control.
The Queen’s Chain
Since 1840, Maori and non-Maori alike have known this as the
“Queens Chain”. While it may not have been enacted into law,
it is common law under the Magna Charta - the law of England -
the law the chief's accepted in 1840. It has been a
distinguishing feature of New Zealand society since 1840. It
is an unwritten law of New Zealand that must not be changed.
Part-Maori still own the rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore
with all their fellow countrymen, they are held in “trust” by
the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders to enjoy.
Who Owns the Rivers, Lakes, Seabeds and Foreshore?
Over the years, this has been an ongoing dispute between Maori
and the Crown, but it has never been legally proved who
actually owns our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore. Ancient
history, the Magna Carta, Queen Victoria, British Law or the
Tiriti o Waitangi did not give the ownership of our rivers,
lakes, seabed or foreshore to Maori, they are held in “trust”
by the Crown for the people of New Zealand. Until it is proved
otherwise, the Crown has no right to give our rivers, lakes,
seabed or foreshore to one group of New Zealand Citizens who
are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the
Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”.
Distinct Race of People
Maori have intermarried of their own free will with other
races and therefore are no longer the “distinct race of people
that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. Maori today are
New Zealand Citizens that claim varying degrees of Maori
ancestry as one sees in the continuing amended legislation
since 1865 as their Maori ancestry becomes further and further
diluted.
“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your
ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.
Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P. – 1922.
Compiled by Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation from New
Zealand’s Archives.
Back
to top of page >>>
18
June 10
Brownies, Darkies, Whities, Honkies, Andy Haden, Murry
McCully and the Prime Minister!
By
Gavin de Malmanche
Ex All Black great and successful businessman Andy Haden on
the Murray Deaker TV 3 sports programme on Wednesday night 26
May 2010 said exactly what 90% of most savvy New Zealand rugby
followers are privately saying but do not have the strength of
character to publicly voice the opinion that too many
brownies, darkies or whatever, may not deliver the goods in
the rugby union Super 14 environment. Based on the successful
results of the Crusaders team it is fair and reasonable to
conclude there could be an element of truth in this
suggestion.
New Zealand appears to be trapped in a world of double
standards We accept racial preference with a specific number
of race based Maori Parliamentary seats, race based political
parties and race based appointments to numerous Government
Boards but we seem to be loathe to openly discuss, debate and
accept the concept of a Crusaders rugby team determining its
own winning numeric blend of race based cultural and ethnic
talent.
It seems a Government taskforce can recommend 3 only “brown
seats” on the new Auckland Super City Council but such a
determination is beyond the pale for independent democratic
private enterprise. It's OK to have an all brown Maori team
but to have an all white New Zealand team or a white team with
a smaller number of “brownies” or “darkies” is somehow
unacceptable. It seems America can talk unashamedly in terms
of blacks and whites but in New Zealand it appears it is one
way traffic. MP Hone Harawira, Tame Iti, et al, can castigate
"whities” and “honkies” at will but when it comes to "whities"
referring to "brownies" or “darkies” and reminding people of
how successful a particular blend of racial and ethnic talent
has been for the Crusaders, that's somehow not allowed.
Apropos the capping of "brownies" in the Crusaders rugby team
to no more than three players as this is not factual it seems
highly unlikely such a direction has been identified and
written in what was referred to as a Crusaders "Charter” or
“Manual.” Andy Haden did say that he was told this was a
written policy which of course if true transfers the "no more
than three players” claim on to another party. Any way which
way, at the end of the a day, a policy if there was a policy,
seems to have consistently delivered the Crusaders into the
semi finals or better with what most people believe to be a
smaller number of “brownies” or “darkies” than the majority of
other Super 14 teams may have.
Good on you Andy Haden. It is healthy for New Zealand to
debate such issues in public and especially without Murray
McCully and the Prime Minister getting involved.
Back
to top of page >>>
7
June 10
Ngapuhi Ceded Their Territories in 1840
Below is the time line when the British Crown obtained
Sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand and New Zealand
became a British Colony under British Rule.
1820 – 1830 - Ngapuhi Slaughters 60,000 of their fellow
countrymen
Hongi Hika had just returned from England where he had
exchanged all the gifts the King had given him for 300 muskets
when passing through Sydney on his return to New Zealand.
Ngapuhi then went on a rampage south, slaughtering an
estimated 60,000 of their defenseless, unarmed countrymen, but
soon realized the southern tribes were arming themselves and
would travel north for utu - revenge. The French, who the
Ngapuhi feared had also established themselves at Hokianga and
were showing an interest in claiming New Zealand for France.
The chiefs wanted to put Britain between them and the French.
1831 – Letter from the 13 Chiefs
Thirteen Northern Chiefs wrote to the King asking him to be
their guardian and protector, not only from the French, but
also from their own people – the southern tribes. The King
acknowledged this request by sending a Resident, James Busby
to New Zealand in 1833.
1835 – Declaration of Independence
As New Zealand built ships were sailing to Sydney, James Busby
introduced the Declaration of Independence to the northern
tribes to give them a form of identity and a flag under which
New Zealand ships could be registered. In 1835, thirty-four
Ngapuhi chiefs signed a Declaration of Independence declaring
their territories Independent States.
This declaration stated they would meet in Congress each year
for the purpose of forming laws for the dispensation of
justice, preservation of peace and good order and regulation
of trade, but the ever present inter-tribal tension and
fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as
always and it was abandoned without one Congress meeting being
held. It finally became evident that the chiefs could never
form a united working government.
The declaration could not give full sovereignty as the tribes
only had power over their territories as long as they could
defend them. No united political structure existed within New
Zealand at the time.
"Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori, who
saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation,
would have been unable to exercise full rights as an
independent state, there was no indigenous political structure
upon which to base a united congress. However, it did
introduce Maori to the idea of a legal relationship with
Britain and therefore, five years later, to the Treaty of
Waitangi". Historian Claudia Orange.
This interpretation was echoed by another historian, Michael
King, who maintained, “That the Declaration had no reality,
since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure
within New Zealand”. King also pointed out that some of the
United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of
signing the Declaration.
Historian Paul Moon agreed, “That the Declaration represented
a 'regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document
of truly constitutional significance'. No Congress ever met”.
1837 – Call for More Effective Government
Serious outbreaks of inter-tribal fighting intensified in many
parts of New Zealand in 1837, but as Busby had no forces (A
man-o-war without guns) he could do little to stop it. The
settlers, traders and 192 chiefs wanted more than the
half-hearted official commitment represented by Busby and
appealed to Britain for a more effective Government. As the
inter-tribal fighting increased, the Maori population deceased
and vast tracks of land was being sold to the land hungry
Europeans to purchase muskets and European goods, Britain had
to take more control as she had been asked and promised to
protect the people and their property in 1831 and again in
1835. To do this legally, New Zealand had to become a British
Colony and for New Zealand to become a British Colony to bring
law and order to both Maori and non-Maori, Britain had to
obtain the chief’s consent to sovereignty over the whole land.
For two years the Colonial Office debated the best way to
become involved in New Zealand and it was decided, but with
extreme reluctance, to send William Hobson, a highly ranked
Officer in the British Navy with a good knowledge of New
Zealand, to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs to obtain
sovereignty over the whole land so Britain could legally set
up a government to bring law, order and protection and to
investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes for all
the people of New Zealand, settler and Maori alike. One
Sovereignty, one law for all the people of New Zealand.
1840 – Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Before William Hobson left Britain, he was fully briefed on
what a treaty must contain. First, he must obtain sovereignty
over the whole land, second, all Maori and non-Maori land and
property ownership must be verified and titles given, third,
any land the Maoris wanted to sell must only be sold to the
Queens representative, and fourth, the Maoris would be
protected and guaranteed access to the same
benefits/rights/laws of the British Subjects if they consented
to the first three conditions.
Hobson arrived on the 29 January 1840 and went about drafting
a treaty as instructed by the Colonial Office with the help of
Freeman his secretary, Busby and the missionaries. Hobson
became ill and gave his notes to Busby to complete. On the 4
February, Hobson had recovered and went ashore to the American
Consulate, James Clendon’s house to finalize the treaty with
Busby and Clendon. Clendon had also been involved and a
signatory to the Declaration of Independence in 1835.
At 4 pm on the 4 February 1840, Hobson delivered the “final
draft” of the Treaty to Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward
to translate into the Maori language. On the 5 February, the
final draft and the Maori translation were read to the
gathering of chief’s, their followers and the settlers etc at
Waitangi. The Chiefs then discussed the Treaty with Hobson,
Busby and the missionaries, giving speeches for and against it
for five hours. From these speeches, the chiefs had a very
good understanding of the Treaty, which was confirmed at the
Kohimarama Conference 20 years later. The meeting was
adjourned for the chiefs to discuss it amongst themselves with
another meeting scheduled for February 7.
For the rest of the night the missionaries discussed the
treaty with the chiefs at the Te Tii Marae. As Rev Henry
Williams recalls, “We gave them but one version, explaining
clause by clause, showing the advantages to them of being
taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by
which act they would become one people with the British, in
suppression of wars, and every lawless act; under one
sovereignty and one law, human and divine.”
As the majority of the chiefs gathered agreed that the treaty
was to their advantage and should be signed immediately,
Hobson was summonsed the next morning. While Rev Colenso tried
to stop the signing as he believed the chiefs did not fully
understand it, Hone Heke dispelled this by immediately
stepping forward, being the first of 52 chiefs to sign the
Tiriti o Waitangi on the 6 February 1840. As each Chief
signed, Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi
tatou – We are now one people”, to which the whole gathering
agreed and gave three hearty cheers.
“He iwi Tahi Tatou – We are now one people” - The true spirit
of the Treaty of Waitangi!
On the 8 February, the H M S Herald fired a 21-gun salute to
commemorate the cession to Her Majesty of the right of
sovereignty to New Zealand, although sovereignty was not
declared until 17 June 1840 at Cloudy Bay. This 21-gun salute
to commemorate the cession to Her Majesty of the right of
sovereignty to New Zealand has continued every year at the
Waitangi day celebrations since 1840.
The Treaty was between two nations/peoples having the
authority and agreeing between themselves to wide powers
affecting them both, but after the Treaty was signed, the
Chiefs had given up their territories to the British Crown in
return for protection and one law, one Sovereignty for all the
people of New Zealand.
Final Draft (The Littlewood Treaty Document)
After Hobson and Williams had gathered further signatures,
Hobson became ill again and the “final draft” was misplaced,
although this was of no concern at the time as Hobson only
authorised one treaty to be signed by the chiefs and that was
in the Maori language. The English text of the Treaty had
nothing to do with the documents signed by the chiefs; it was
a “Royal Style” version compiled by Hobson’s secretary, James
Freeman for overseas despatch. While it was of no concern at
the time, Freeman’s text has since been used as the “Official
English Version” to give privilege to Maori and to make Rev
William’s translation seem incompetent. In 1989, the “final
draft”, (Littlewood treaty document) was found, but the
Government is afraid of the consequences if it is made public
and refuses to recognise it as the “final draft”.
There is Only One Treaty – Tiriti o Waitangi
There is only one treaty as Governor Hobson stated when he
gave his instructions to those gathering further signatures
after he became ill, "The treaty which forms the base of all
my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840,
by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a
majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence.
This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all
signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely
testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original
document". Over 500 chiefs, including Ngapuhi ceded their
territories to the British in 1840.
International Recognition
There is no denying that Britain legally obtained sovereignty
of New Zealand as it was recognised and agreed by the major
powers at the time, especially France and America. France also
wanted sovereignty of New Zealand but accepted defeat on the
20 July 1840; “That sovereignty had been procured in a manner
such as could be approved by other nations”. If sovereignty
had not been obtained legally, France would have challenged
it.
Governor Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 12 May 1840
over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by
Discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London
Gazette on 2 October 1840 and New Zealand became a Crown
Colony.
Give Up Territories/Parts
The Treaty did not ceded Sovereignty of New Zealand, as there
was no Sovereignty to cede; it ceded the chief’s individual
territories, (wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei ki te
Kuini - all places/parts of New Zealand which may be given up
now or hereafter to the Queen), so Britain could form a legal
Government under British Sovereignty, British Rule.
Kohimarama Conference uses Busby’s Rejected Draft Notes
In 1860, Governor Browne convened a conference between 112
North Island chiefs to discuss the Treaty. In his opening
address, Browne used an unauthorised Article 2 of the Treaty
text compiled by James Freeman. This was not Article 2 of the
Treaty the 52 chiefs signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840
that Governor Hobson, “Considered to be de facto the treaty,
and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely
testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original
document". A total of 540 chiefs were read, discussed and
signed this “original document”.
Unfortunately, Government, their historians and Maori have
used Freeman’s “Royal Style” text of the Treaty compiled from
Busby’s rejected draft notes since to give Maori privileges
over non-Maori never intended or authorised by the Colonial
Office or Governor Hobson in 1840. From the chief’s speeches
at this Conference, they had a far better understanding of the
Treaty than the Government of one law, one sovereignty for all
the people of New Zealand. Governor Browne’s error has allowed
Maori to use Freeman’s unauthorised text to their advantage
over non-Maori ever since. There was never an English version
of the Treaty; the Tiriti o Waitangi gave the same rights to
all the people of New Zealand under; one sovereignty, one law
(Article 3).
Never a Partnership
The Treaty was never a partnership between Maori and the
Crown. Maori were guaranteed the same rights as a British
subject, no more – no less (Article 3). This was confirmed by
our Attorney General, Hon David Lange when he stated on the
ABC programme “Four Corners” in 1990, “Did Queen Victoria for
a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of
signatures and a number of thumb prints and 500 people, Queen
Victoria was not that sort of person”.
Distinct Race of People
Since this time, Ngapuhi, as well as all other Maori have
intermarried of their own free will with other races and
therefore are no longer the “distinct race of people that
signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. Maori today are New
Zealand Citizens that claim varying degrees of Maori ancestry
as one sees in the continuing amended legislation since 1865
as their Maori ancestry becomes further and further diluted.
“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your
ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.
Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P. – 1922.
Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation from New Zealand’s
Archives.
Back
to top of page >>>
7
June 10
Time to Toughen Up Welfare
By
David Hill
In New Zealand we have a remarkable welfare system that is the
envy of many other countries.
No matter if you are sick, injured, Left on your own with kids
to support or you are out of work the state will look after
you until you recover, find work or in some cases provide a
permanent lifeline of support for the rest of your life. Wow
what a perfect system and for most of us it works that way,
perfectly until a certain small and I stress small section of
our population see it as not a life line but a permanent
lifestyle .
I will give you an example, true story, a few years ago I was
running a Radio Station in a city not too far from here.
I received a call from Winz “We have a program designed to get
long term unemployed youth back into the workforce, could you
take on an 18 year old for 2 to 3 months and train them in one
of your craft areas in your radio station, we will pay them
and there is no obligation for ongoing employment etc”…..
Sure I said I would love to help these guys get back into
employment we have many craft areas we could teach them skills
in, production, sales, creative writing, news announcing etc.
So a young man turned up Monday morning, after the welcome and
a walk around with introductions I placed the guy in one of
the studios with the announcer for the first day to get a feel
for what we do.
He went down the road for some smokes at 10… and never came
back. Never mind the lady from WINZ says I’ll send you
another. After the same procedure this young man said he was
going for lunch at 12 and…. Never came back. I was getting
worried at this stage and questioned the staff as to why this
may be happening, are you being nice to them? Yes was the
reply.
So we were sent a 3rd young man who after lasting the first
day, I thought yes we have a live one here, but on the second
day he informed us he had a Tangi to go to and went, you
guessed it he never came back.
So after apologies from the WINZ lady I suggested perhaps we
were not the correct employer for this sort of program. Also
the thought crossed my mind these guys obviously don’t want to
be here and are actually happy to be on a welfare payment,
maybe they don’t actually want to work.
So the National Governments move to force long term unemployed
back into work or have your dole cut is a very good move, it
should be even tougher in my opinion perhaps if you are fit
and young and out of work for more than 6 months a compulsory
training period in the Army to learn new skills wouldn’t go
amiss.
Back
to top of page >>>
23
May 10
Tuhoe Confiscations Inevitable and Justified
By
Ross Baker
The media has published many articles to support the alleged
Tuhoe claim with much of it based on selective research by the
Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Paul Moon, Bruce Stirling and others.
However, most importantly, as with many of these claims, there
is another side to this story that must also be told. While
Tuhoe did suffer at the hands of the government troops and
their Maori supporters, they brought it upon themselves by
protecting the “rebels” that had violated both Maori and
European. Below is a brief account of why the confiscated
lands were “inevitable and justified”, as fully documented in
New Zealand’s archives.
Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty largely because they were too
isolated for it to be taken to them, read, discussed and given
the opportunity to sign. Unlike Ngapuhi and other northern
tribes, Tuhoe had very little contact with the Europeans, the
missionaries or the British Crown and remained this way for
many years after the Treaty was signed, when New Zealand was
ceded to Britain, which was recognized and accepted by all the
major nations of the world.
In December 1864, Kereopa brought the Pai Marire religion to
the East Coast but was told not to interfere with the
Europeans. On the 2 March 1865, missionary Rev C S Volkner was
hanged from a willow tree near his church. His body was then
decapitated and the head paraded around the village before
Kereopa swallowed his eyes, calling one Parliament and the
other the Queen and British Law. Kereopa instigated the
killing of Volkner, as he believed he had been spying for the
Government, which caused the death of two members of his
family. Although this act outraged the Europeans, such an
indignity to the head of an enemy conferred mana amongst
Tuhoe. If the government was to honour the commitment Britain
had made to all the people of New Zealand in1840, then it was
time a stand had to be taken to bring law and order to the
people of the East Coast.
After the killing of Völkner, Kereopa fled to the Urerewas
under the protection of Tuhoe. In May 1865, he and a party of
Tuhoe attempted to travel to Waikato, but were prevented from
reaching the Kaingaroa plains by a force of Te Arawa - but not
before killing two Te Arawa chiefs with Kereopa again eating
their eyes. They were forced to turn back when a relief party
of Te Arawa, led by W. G. Mair, arrived. Kereopa, under the
protection of Tuhoe from the Government troops, returned to
hiding in the Ureweras.
Kereopa had much mana in the minds of Tuhoe and thus obtained
their continuing protection. The dense bush of the Urewera
Mountains offered him protection from the Government troops,
as it later would for Te Kooti and the Hauhau. Martial Law had
been declared in the Opotiki and Whakatane districts after the
killing of Völkner, and a reward was offered for the capture
of those responsible.
Over the next three years, the people of the Urewera were
weakened, and their land devastated by the government’s
relentless pursuit of Kereopa for his involvement with
Volkner’s killing; Te Kooti for his massacres up and down the
country and the Hauhau who were attacking and killing innocent
settlers and their families and destroying their crops and
buildings. However, Tuhoe continued to protect these “rebels”.
The government troops included Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu
and Te Arawa embarked on several campaigns to capture the
“rebels”. During these campaigns Tuhoe’s pa were plundered,
crops destroyed, people killed and land confiscated. This in
itself is Maori custom, - revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong.
There is no denying Tuhoe land was devastated, but they
brought it upon themselves by protecting the “rebels” from
being brought to justice.
By late 1870 several Tuhoe leaders had made their peace with
the government, but they would not violate the sanctuary of
the Urewera by giving up Kereopa, Te Kooti or the Hauhau.
Eventually, however, seeing that their survival was now
threatened, they withdrew this protection.
It was agreed amongst Tuhoe that neither European soldiers nor
Ngati Porou forces should be allowed to capture the “rebels”:
as their protectors, they would deliver Kereopa themselves to
the government. Kereopa agreed to give himself up as payment
for the Tuhoe blood that had been shed for him.
It must be remembered that it was not only the government that
wanted law and order established on the East Coast. Ngati
Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa also fought with the
Government troops, as did many other tribes around New Zealand
to enforce the Queens Law. These three iwi were instrumental
in the 1870 and 1871 pursuit of the “rebels” that Tuhoe
allowed to take refuge in Urewera Mountains after massacres in
Poverty Bay.
There is no denying that Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa
were out of step with the majority of New Zealand, both Maori
and European at the time, which they eventually realised,
releasing the “rebels” they had been protecting. By this time,
the majority of Maori had realised that for the Maori race to
survive, there had to be one government, one law for all the
people of New Zealand and had put this law in the hands of the
Britain Crown.
Due to the isolation of Tuhoe, the “1896 Urewera District
Native Act” established some 650,000 acres of their land as a
reserve - but never gave them full autonomy. It was no more
than a “Maori local government” under the control of the
Crown. The Government gained Tuhoe’s recognition of the Queen.
All tribal powers had to be within the Law, devolved and
approved by the Crown. The Crown intended that in due course
it would impose “all the responsibilities, liabilities and
privileges” of the other iwi that had signed the Treaty, on
the Tuhoe people. The government would not have had the
authority to give Tuhoe full autonomy. This “Maori local
government” was revoked a few years later.
Over the next 60 years, Tuhoe sold large tracts of their
underdeveloped wasteland to the Government. Later the Crown
vested most of this land into the Urewera National Park for
all the people of New Zealand to enjoy, including the people
of the Eastern tribes.
The Waitangi Tribunal stated that Tuhoe had 24,147 ha of land
confiscated, but Government figures show, in 1866, 448,000
acres (181,000 hectares) of land belonging to the tribes of
the Bay of Plenty, Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were
confiscated by the government. Government documents show, this
area was subsequently reduced to 211,000 acres (85,387
hectares), of which Tūhoe lost 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares).
The Waitangi Tribunal also claims Tuhoe were never
compensated, but in Richard Hill’s Justice Department report
for the Lange Government in 1989, page 11 clause 31, shows
Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958. Tuhoe is also a
party to the Waikaremoana Trust Board that receives $124,000
per year in rental for Lake Waikaremoana.
The alliance of the Tuhoe with Kereopa, Te Kooti and the
Hauhau and their resistance of the Crown to apprehend these
“rebels” after killing many innocent Maori and European -
meant military action was inevitable and justified – a fact
admitted by the Waitangi Tribunal stating, “The alliance of
the Tuhoe people with Te Kooti and the attacks on the Crown’s
subjects, Maori and Pakeha that followed, meant military
action was inevitable and justified” - as was the
confiscations. If New Zealand was to be civilised as the
majority of the chiefs had asked for in 1840, then the action
taken by the government of the day was inevitable and
justified, especially when the compensated land was reduced to
only 5,700 ha and Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958
and the ongoing rental of Lake Waikaremoana– a fact not
mentioned by the Waitangi Tribunal.
This “Kangaroo Court” method of determining our countries
future by the Waitangi Tribunal and others must stop. There
must be a full public inquire were all the documented evidence
is presented and scrutinised before more land and assets
belonging to the people of New Zealand are given away without
their, knowledge, authority or consent. This is our sovereign
right Prime Minister and the people also deserve balanced
reporting from our media!
Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc from files held
in New Zealand’s Archives.
Back
to top of page >>>
23 May 10
Our True
Treaty Gives "Same" Rights to All!
By
George
At the Otaki foreshore meeting held in the Memorial Hall on
the 17th of April, 2010, a guy called George Green was the
first to speak and said.
Facing the audience he started "We don't live in Canada or
Australia or any other country identified by the Hon.
Christopher Finlayson. We live here, in New Zealand, and we
have a Treaty. This is a Treaty matter and first of all our
Treaty has to be clarified before this meeting should
continue."
There was a positive response from an audience of possibly 150
to 200 attending. Of this, maybe 6 could be identified as
European.
"Here it is [as he held it up for all to see] and the Official
English Draft from which it was translated. Both have been
authenticated by a strong, factual, paper trail which has been
examined by Governments top historians and a private historian
hired by Government, a Dr Donald Loveridge. None could find
fault with this paper trail. Both te Tiriti and the draft from
which it was translated are not different from each other but
as true as the idiom of language permits, making the "same
[Article 3]" promises."
Then turning to the minister he said, "Is that correct
Minister?
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Mr Green turned back to the audience and confirmed the
minister agreed.
Continuing, Mr. Green said after the Treaty was signed Hobson
wrote, "That signed on the 6th of Feb 1840 is defacto our
Treaty and all further signatures are but a testament to this
document." "Only the Maori Treaty was signed on this day."
Turning to the minister he said, "Is that correct Minister?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Mr Green continued, "International law states that when there
is more than one Treaty and one is in the native language,
that in the native language takes precedence over all others.
Is that correct Minister?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Mr.Green continued. "At the signing of our Treaty Maoris ceded
Sovereignty to England and in England there is no such thing
as customary rights or title, in fact, no racial laws
what-so-ever. Is that correct Minster?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Turning back to the Audience Mr Green said, "May I point out
to everyone here that Hon. Finlayson has agreed with
everything I have stated as being true. I would like to now
hand over these two documents to the Right Hon. Dr.
Christopher Finlayson, Minister of Treaty of Waitangi
Negotiations, and ask him to read to you from the Treaty text
anything, anything at all, which gives a privilege to Maoris
that is not available to any other New Zealander in order that
this meeting can continue."
Mr Finlayson said, "I won't be answering questions at the
moment, you will have to wait until the end when I will answer
everyone."
Mr. Green, "You will have to verify there is a reason in the
Treaty before continuing with this meeting, won't you?"
Finlayson, "No, I've said I will answer your question after
everyone has had a chance to talk and I will answer everyone
then."
Turning back to the audience Mr Green said, "I want you all to
note he will not answer me because he can't. There are no
exclusive rights for Maori in our Treaty."
Having to accept Finlayson's directive, Mr. Green returned to
his seat to such a strong round of applause it quite took him
by surprise in consideration nearly all were Maoris.
A later speaker addressed Mr Green, pointed out his accent and
said he would be better down the South Island with an accent
like that. He said more, but as he never went to the
microphone it was difficult to hear.
Picking up on it, Mr Green wondered if the speaker said
something about going home to his own country and said this in
response. "Excuse me Sir, after our Treaty was signed New
Zealand became British soil. This is my Country!" Said as he
pointed strongly at the ground. "Our Treaty gave the same
rights to Maoris as the English, so this is also our country."
Again he pointed strongly at the ground. This drew a round of
applause.
Another speaker was of the opinion that customary rights/
title was more of a Clayton's law, as this never existed and
also voiced support for Mr. Green. He also left to a round of
applause which few did.
It must be said that the meeting could never have been
classified as a consultation with the public. The public said
their piece, one hit and it was over, Dr. Finlayson didn't
necessarily answer their question, as in the case of Mr.
Green. Finlayson, as Mr. Green said he would, did not attempt
to quote from the Treaty text. My belief is, "If he could, he
would."
As soon as the Minister answered the last speaker, the top
chair left the room so quickly no one could respond to
Finlayson's remarks. For this reason, it could never be
classified as a consultation as to be such a dialog would have
to be entered into. MEETING ENDS.
Most Tiriti settlements are made from the first sentence of
Article 2. The following is quoted from this Article,
Quote. "The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the
chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand,
the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their
property." End quote. Note, "all the people of New Zealand."
Note, there is no mention of fish, forests, Maori sovereignty
or any exclusive rights to anyone.
Article 3. Quote. "In return for their cession of sovereignty
to the Queen, Maoris shall be protected by the Queen and be
granted the same rights as the people of England." End quote.
Note the word "same."
Article 1. Quote. "The chiefs of the confederation of United
Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the
confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the
entire sovereignty/governance of their country. End quote.
I leave it to readers to work out why Hon. Finlayson refused
to quote from te Tiriti text anything which grants exclusive
rights to Maoris.
Common sense reasons the Queen would not exclude her own
subjects within any Treaty.
Back
to top of page >>>
16
May 100
Scrapping
Youth Pay Ratess
By
Joe Carrr
The scrapping of youth pay rates has been a disaster for our
young people.
The legislation that required youth over 16 to be paid the
minimum adult wage of $510 per week was a good election
gimmick for young first-time voters, but like the freeing up
alcohol for the young, the scrapping of youth pay rates has
come to haunt us. What do the statistics say? For the three
months ending on March 30 2010, the national unemployment rate
dipped from 7.3% to 6%; however the youth unemployment rate
has risen unabated to 18.4%. Youth are three times more likely
to be unemployed than their older counterparts, simply because
employers relate wages to a worker’s productivity. Employers
are bound by law to pay kids who lack experience and
productivity the same minimum wage of $12.75 per hour as older
workers.
Turning 18 is the milestone when youth are eligible receive to
a $160 per week benefit. The difference of $350 between the
dole and a job at $510 per week is considerable. Most likely
the young unemployed will, in the face of the employment
market’s resistance to meet this wage, need to think
creatively how to supplement their meagre weekly entitlement
of $160. This could quite well see a number of them
represented in other statistics. For parents who make their
unemployed children work at home or on the farm without paying
the arbitrary $510 per week there is a concern that they could
be prosecuted. A bit like the smacking law, but of course the
authorities will use discretion.
So you thought National would sort this out? National’s
solution is to subsidise employers $136 per week for 22 week
training period for registered unemployed under 22 years of
age, throughout which the minimum wage of $510 must be paid. A
bonus to the boss of $2000 can be if the training is
completed. Trends have already become established amongst
farmers. Employing youth is hard work, especially if an
employer is conscientious. Teaching young workers often takes
longer than doing yourself. Many farmers who once employed
young people now employ skilled contractors who are GST
registered and who own their own hand tools, dogs, quads and
transport etc needed to do specific tasks. The current
position looks grim for the young hopeful and a disaster for
society which will have to accept to the long term
consequences of unskilled youth maturing unto unskilled adults
increasingly reliant on state support.
It would be appreciated if our politicians could put their
party lines aside and sort out the mess that they have made of
youth alcohol and youth employment matters.
Back
to top of page >>>
16
May 10
The
Foreshore and Seabed Review
By
J.B. Cronin
Now that the Attorney-General’s series of information hui and
public meetings throughout the country on the review of the
Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has concluded, hopefully more
people will have become aware of what a sham these meetings
have been.
The meetings were poorly advertised (one notice only in
Wellington, in tiny type amongst the Public Notices in the
DominionPost). They were described as “opportunities for
people to discuss the Government’s proposals”.
However, those people like myself who naively attended the
public meeting in Wellington ready to discuss the main issue
of whether or not the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 should be
repealed were to be bitterly disappointed. At the start of the
meeting, the public were told that the sole purpose of the
meeting was for the Attorney-General, Hon Christopher
Finlayson, to present and explain the proposals prepared by
the Government to replace the current 2004 Act, and that all
discussion would be confined to the details of these
alternative proposals.
This immediately precluded any discussion of the major issue –
and for anyone, like myself, who believed that the Act should
not be repealed, the entire meeting was pointless.
In the course of his presentation – which consisted of a
summary of the material which was on the Ministry of Justice
website – Mr Finlayson stated that “most people” would agree
that the 2004 Act was unsatisfactory, and he then proceeded on
the assumption that the Act would be repealed.
As an indication of the spirit of the meeting, one elderly
gentleman made a well presented appeal to Mr Finlayson, asking
if it was not time to stop all this confrontation and try to
find a way for all New Zealanders to be equal. Mr Finlayson
replied that there were various forms of equality: One was
equality before the law, but there was another form which did
not mean sameness, but meant different things to different
people. (Where have I heard this before? “All animals are
equal, but some are more equal than others”.)
Obviously none of these meetings can be claimed by Mr
Finlayson to be “public consultation” on the repeal issue.
Once general discussion had been disallowed, the only form of
comment and protest left to the public was to make a
submission directly to the Ministry of Justice – either on the
12-page form available on the website (if you could find it),
or in a submission of one’s own making – and time allowed for
making submissions is significantly short.
Back
to top of page >>>
11
May 10
Harmless Window Dressing?
By Reuben P. Chapple
New Zealand’s recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not binding and lacks an
enforcement mechanism. Nonetheless, this document is far from
harmless.
The Declaration’s high-sounding phrases on the rights of
indigenous people to self-determination, to maintain their own
languages and cultures, to protect their natural and cultural
heritage, and manage their own affairs, will surely embolden
the Maori Sovereignty movement.
All ideas have a pedigree. The ideological underpinning of
both the UN Declaration and the Maori Sovereignty movement
lies in the early 20th Century writings of Communist
revolutionaries Lenin and Stalin on something they called “The
National Question.”
Communists specialise in creating social discord to divide an
existing society into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. They
work tirelessly to persuade the supposedly downtrodden that
they have a grievance then promise to help them get what they
want.
Around 1905, Lenin and Stalin noted that Tsarist Russia
consisted not just of ethnic Russians, but upwards of 80
formerly tribal subject peoples, conquered by the Czars over
the preceding 500 years and forcibly Russified. To expand the
Bolshevik support base, these peoples were promised “the right
to manage their own affairs,” “the right to
self-determination,” “the right to speak, read, write, use,
and be taught in their own language” etc. It is this more than
100 year-old Communist cant that now surfaces in the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
After World War I the multi-ethnic empires of Austro-Hungary
and Czarist Russia to which the National Question was first
applied to stir up revolution were no more. Lenin and Stalin
then directed the National Question towards undermining the
hold of European nations over their colonial possessions, so
as to deprive them of sources of cheap labour, raw materials,
and markets for finished goods.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Communists all over the
world were instructed to promote the independence aspirations
of minority ethnic groups in order to bring them into conflict
with the status quo, thus undermining social cohesion,
breaking up nations and dependencies into warring factions,
and leading to eventual socialist control.
After the creation of the UN in 1945, Communists on its
various committees and workgroups began to drip-feed National
Question ideology into the fabric of the organisation. By
1960, the UN General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on
the Granting of Indendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
This stated that all peoples have a right to
self-determination and proclaimed that colonialism should be
brought to a speedy and unconditional end.
Locally, the Communist Party of New Zealand (“CPNZ”) soon
identified a minority strand of Maori opinion centred on the
Tainui and Tuwharetoa tribes that had always favoured
reversion to tribalism rather than engagement with the modern
world. The CPNZ ran in the 1935 General Election on a platform
that included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the
point of complete separation.” Again, you heard it here first.
In the 1930s, the CPNZ had little success with this line.
Maori were a predominately rural people and had little contact
with Communists, who were mostly found in urban areas with a
substantial manufacturing base. This soon changed. Over the
period 1945 – 1975, Maori underwent what University of Waikato
demographers Pool and Pole describe as “the most rapid
urbanisation of any group of people, anywhere.”
This brought Maori flooding into the universities and trade
unions, the CPNZ’s main recruiting grounds. The Communists
who’d begun colonising the nation’s universities in the 1930s
as a deliberate project had by the early 1970s achieved
critical mass in many departments, especially those
specialising in the study of society. Their growing dominance
on faculty hiring committees allowed them to systematically
exclude anyone holding alternative views.
Controlling the universities was based on the writings of
Antonio Gramsci, yet another disreputable Communist held up as
an intellectual icon by the academic Left. In the 1920s,
Gramsci realised that the western democracies were too
attached to the benefits of individual rights, patriotism, and
Judeo-Christian culture. These ideas were deeply embedded and
would not be easily surrendered.
Revolution must therefore first take place on the level of
consciousness. Gramsci’s adherents sought control over
culture, organised religion, media, education, and other areas
where intellectual discourse takes place. The goal of these
self-appointed “agents of social change” was to colonise, then
subvert the institutions of the system they sought to destroy.
Starting in the 1930s, western university students have been
increasingly subjected to systematic brainwashing by Gramsci’s
disciples using the universities as a factory for ideological
reproduction. They were told they were learning “progressive”
new ideas about race, gender and class, not Communism. They
were programmed with all the principles of Communism without
the label then flattered for their cleverness in accepting the
programming. If you told them they were Marxists or
Communists, they’d respond with a pitying smile, roll their
eyes, and accuse you of “seeing Reds under the bed.”
After graduating, these useful idiots slithered forth from the
academy into the media, education system, trade unions, Labour
Party, entertainment industry, churches and other institutions
that shape society’s governing ideas. Our universities thus
served as a transmission belt into wider society for a raft of
Communist narratives, including that of Maori as an
“oppressed” people. As a result, the political centre of
gravity has moved steadily leftward over several generations.
Just a few decades ago anyone peddling ethnic nationalism
would have been regarded as dangerously deluded. Now, through
the Communist tactic of “pressure from above” by the UN and
“pressure from below” by ethnic nationalist groups within
member-states, the topic has been successfully mainstreamed.
All so-called “Maori” alive today are actually of mixed
European-Maori descent. Although the Maori phenotype tends to
predominate in one’s appearance, the vast majority of those
claiming to be “Maori” actually possess more of the blood of
the colonisers than that of the colonised.
The presumptions within the UN Declaration of Indigenous
Rights, that such individuals are entitled to separate,
different, or superior rights because some of their ancestors
were here first can now be seen for what it is: a long-running
Communist-generated subversion strategy designed to substitute
UN-brokered group rights for the individual equality in
citizenship that guarantees national sovereignty and a free
society.
Back
to top of page >>>
9
November 09
When
Privatisation Does Not Work
By Emeritus Professor Guenther
Mueller-Heumann, University of Otago*
New Zealand’s history of
privatisation of public assets is very chequered. The
privatisation of the railway system, sold first to a company
in Wisconsin, then sold again to Toll Holdings in Australia,
and eventually bought back recently by the New Zealand
government was clearly based on a serious lack of business
acumen by the successive governments involved. It should have
been clear from the beginning that profit-orientated overseas
companies interested in New Zealand railways could well be
leaning more towards asset stripping and cost-cutting by
reducing services offered than competing against road and
other transport competitors at all cost.
Another
example of privatisation having gone wrong is the partial
privatisation of New Zealand’s electricity industry. Everyone
will remember Max Bradford’s grandstanding about the prospect
of lower electricity prices. His forcefully presented
arguments were based on seemingly rock-solid evidence about
the benefits of private enterprise competition – compared to
public bureaucracy inefficiencies. Max Bradford was probably
admired by many free market economists at the time. Reality
shows that he was wrong. Why?
Economic theory of
competition in a market economy is flawed. Competition only
works in certain circumstances.
There are three
preconditions for competition to work for the benefit of
consumers: Consumers themselves have to have “freedom of
choice”, consumer decisions have to be well-informed, and the
product or service has to have the potential to be
differentiated, i.e. different competitors have to be able to
offer consumers different products with different consumer
benefits.
In a free market pluralism reigns. It is
called product differentiation based on market segmentation.
The free market economy works best where there are infinite
possibilities to differentiate the offer for the equally
indefinite whims of consumers.
Electricity, for
example, can ultimately not be differentiated substantially.
Competition should – theoretically – therefore concentrate on
the one management tool that can be differentiated, price. But
there is a limit to price competition because of the safety
factor of this particular product and it is therefore more
profitable for companies, especially in an oligopolistic (not
many competitors) situation to “not rock the boat”. Also it is
not easy for consumers to switch from one company to another,
a situation which is similar in the mortgage market.
In
addition, when the electricity industry was privatised, the
sixty-odd power boards which were cut loose had very different
starting conditions. It was not a “level playing field”. One
new power retailer I know of had access to an old dam which
generated electricity at about two cents a kilowatt/hour
whereas the price of new electricity generation – for a
competitor who wanted to expand into new capacity - was five
to ten times as costly.
With a few exceptions such as
institutionalised markets like the stock exchange, markets
which rely entirely on price do not work well.
Basic
products and services like infrastructure, electricity, the
police, fire brigades, even the basic telephone connection
should not be left to “market forces”, but provided
efficiently by government. Even the National Party, supposedly
the champions of private enterprise, want to set up a
fibre-optic network in New Zealand for very fast Internet
connections. Why has this not been done by private enterprise
a long time ago? Why have the forces of competition not
managed to set up such a system? Why did, both in Australia
and New Zealand, governments have to force the main companies
in the telecommunications market to open their systems to new
competitors?
Private enterprise-type market competition
also does not work well where consumers do not have a free
choice, where “consumer sovereignty” is not present. I have
often said “When you have a pain in your guts, you do not
start to shop around for the best or cheapest doctor”. The
health system is in fact a good example for a situation where
the free market does not work well.
In a recent
television documentary, public health systems and private
health systems world-wide were compared for their efficiency.
The USA with its emphasis on private enterprise health
providers came out worst, the publicly based – although with
private fringe elements – health systems of the UK, Australia
and New Zealand were portrayed as much more efficient.
The size of the economy in New Zealand also limits the
possibilities even within the fringe private health sector:
Private hospitals in New Zealand simply cannot, for example,
afford the most complicated and expensive technology – as a
friend recently experienced: He had undergone a successful
bowel operation in a beautiful new private hospital in
Auckland. Everything went fine until complications developed
and he had to be transferred to a public hospital which had
the very expensive medical technology required for his case.
The private hospital could not afford this technology because
of its costs!
Other examples where “freedom of choice”
does not work well are, for example, decisions parents have to
make about the education of their children. These decisions
are guided more often by the “image” of educational
institutions than cold facts. The writer, during his decades
of work in the tertiary sector in New Zealand, saw many
graduates from “prestige high schools” fail abysmally at
university level, while students from very ordinary high
schools often excelled.
In summary, the private
enterprise free market system does not work in every
situation.
It is definitely the best system where
products can be differentiated, catering for the different
whims of consumers in a pluralistic society. Even the Chinese
communist society, long before subscribing to
quasi-free-market principles, gave up the standard uniform Mao
dresses!
When considering the privatisation of public
assets, decision makers should firstly make sure that the
market competition they set in motion is not based on naive
business thinking, like selling asset-rich organisations to
private companies which are more interested in asset-stripping
than competing.
Secondly, they should consider whether
or not the products which are offered in a competitive
situation can be differentiated, so catering for the
indefinite whims of consumers. If the product cannot be
differentiated and competition focuses on price, the question
is whether the new competitors are prepared and able to use
price or whether they prefer to avoid competition altogether.
Thirdly, can consumers in the newly-created private
enterprise market-place make informed decisions? If consumers
cannot “vote“ freely with their money for the best among all
the alternatives on the market, consumer democracy/the free
market will not work.
*Professor Mueller-Heumann now lives at
Trinity Beach in Far North Queensland.
Back
to top of page >>>
6 September 09
Maori
Seats
By
Reuben Chapple
The Herald has recently editorialised strongly in
favour of separate Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The
weight of published letters and opinion pieces in this
newspaper further contrives at the impression that such
representation is some kind of constitutional and/or moral
requirement.
The elephant in the room is that the so-called
“Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840. Most of those
today claiming to be Maori actually have more of the blood of
the colonisers than of the colonised. All have at least some
European ancestry.
Even if Maori remained a discrete ethnic group, the
Royal Commission’s recommendation that they be separately
represented on the Auckland Council is based on an incorrect
interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Under this set of assumptions, the Crown is in
“partnership” with both a collective “Maori” and with
individual Maori tribes deemed to hold mana
whenua or “chiefly authority” over a
particular locality.
The “partnership” fallacy is based on an erroneous
decision of the Court of Appeal in 1987 case involving the NZ
Maori Council. It rests on what researcher Alan Everton
describes as “nothing more than the opinion of five judges
who combined a lamentable ignorance of
New Zealand
history with a willingness to ignore the Constitutional
principle that they were appointed to apply the law, not make
it.”
The Lange Labour Government's artfully sketchy
references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”
in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 allowed these activist
judges to conclude from the Treaty’s black letter clauses
that it created “something akin to a partnership.”
Yet Article I ceded sovereignty to the Crown
“absolutely and without reservation.”
Article II sets out the protection of existing property
rights under the sovereign power acknowledged as henceforth
prevailing in Article I. It guarantees: “Te tino
rangatiratanga/full authority over their lands, forests
fisheries and other property [the correct translation in
1840]” not just to the chiefs but to “ki nga tangata katoa
o Niu Tirani,” that is “to all the people of
New Zealand
.”
It is only by dishonestly ignoring the words “to all
the people of
New Zealand
” that “tino rangatiratanga” supports a claim under the
Treaty that Maori retained their sovereignty, thus becoming
“partners” with the Crown in some kind of
sovereignty-sharing relationship.
Article III further underscores this position in
granting to “the Natives” (not just to the chiefs) “all
the rights and privileges of British subjects.” Clearly,
individual Maori could not enjoy such rights yet continue to
be ruled in tribal style by chiefs.
There can be no possibility that the Treaty of Waitangi
created a “partnership” or perpetual group rights for New
Zealanders of Maori descent. Having signed the Treaty, the
chiefs became not “partners” but subjects of the Crown, as
did all other New Zealanders.
As subjects of the Crown — that is
New Zealand
citizens — today’s Anglo-Maori are entitled to the same
rights as everyone else. In terms of political representation
at any level of government, this means the right to stand as a
candidate, the right to vote for a preferred candidate, and
the right to make individual or collective submissions to
elected representatives and public bodies.
Ngati Whatua’s demand for mana whenua representation is similarly flawed. It is often asserted
that Ngati Whatua “gifted” the land on which
Auckland
City
now stands to the Crown, thus entitling them to be involved on
an ongoing basis in running the city.
The land was not “gifted” at all, but sold to the
Crown for cash and goods. Once something is sold, it’s gone
for good, and the seller has no further claim over it. In any
event, like so many early land sales, Ngati Whatua’s claims
to ownership at the time of sale are tenuous at best.
Ngati Whatua were not the first occupants of the
Auckland
area. Originally based further north, they colonised the
locality around 1750 by exterminating its former occupants, Te
Waiohua.
What goes around comes around. In the 1820s, the Tamaki
Isthmus was repeatedly invaded by musket-toting Ngapuhi. The
Encyclopaedia of New Zealand records that as a
result: “much of the isthmus was abandoned as tribes sought
shelter in the Tainui region.”
Historian, RCJ Stone, notes: “fear of Ngapuhi
prevented them [Ngati Whatua] from occupying their old home
for many years afterwards, indeed, not until
Auckland
was founded [in 1840] did they feel safe.”
Ngati Whatua thus sold to the Crown land they’d
cravenly fled from more than a decade before. Land they
neither occupied nor controlled in any meaningful sense. This
placed the Governor and his troops between Ngati Whatua
returnees and renewed hostilities from Ngapuhi. Payment from
the Crown also underscored to neighbouring tribes that the mana
of the land remained with Ngati Whatua.
While a clever stroke of business from both a practical
and a Maori perspective, this hardly supports demands from
Aucklanders of Anglo-Ngati Whatua descent for special
political representation, even if this could be justified
under the Treaty of Waitangi, which as we have seen it cannot.
In waving away the Royal Commission’s recommendation
of separate Maori seats on the Auckland Council, the National
Government has clearly made the right call.
Back
to top of page >>>
26 July 09
State
Owned Asset Leasing - the solution to privatisation and public
sector reform
By
Kevin Campbell
Since the Douglas reforms of 1984 New Zealand Labour and
National governments have repeatedly distanced themselves from
even the suggestion of privatizing state assets and private
sector competition for fear of oblivion at the polls.
Populists such as Winston Peters crafted careers out of
irresponsible grandstanding over privatization, usually
targeting the low information voter, to whip up a frenzy of
hysteria, based on nothing more than disgruntlement, nostalgia
and ignorance.
The truth is that a country does not have to “own and
operate” every government department to serve its citizens
better, socially or economically. In fact, there is clear
historical evidence that we have not only benefited from
privatization, but in almost all instances, private enterprise
has delivered our citizens a much greater payback through
lower cost and better service.
Nor does New Zealand need to sell state health or education
assets to benefit – it can lease them to business, and for a
sound commercial return, thus removing almost all of the
spurious objections put forward by self interested politicians
and lobby groups, whose sole aim is to ensure big government,
reliance and dependence on the welfare state.
Successive Labour and National governments have dealt New
Zealanders a great disservice, through their skin deep
thinking and lack of political courage. Their failure to look
beyond the next election or put aside self interest has held
New Zealanders back, especially Maori and those on low
incomes.
One popular myth is that assets owned and paid for by the
taxpayer cost nothing, this is a completely false assertion.
The reality is that state owned assets represent taxpayer
equity and most of those assets require ongoing investment, to
be maintained and justify their existence.
Before government invests one tax dollar in any project, be it
infrastructure, education, health or social welfare it must
know what the payback will be for the country. Those spending
proposals that deliver low quality or a poor return for the
public good (i.e. subsidies for horse racing is not for the
public good) must rank below those that do or be disregarded
entirely.
Where it can be reasonably justified that New Zealanders would
be better served by the private sector buying or leasing a
state owned asset from the government to run a public service
for profit, it should be permitted without hesitation.
The current spineless pretence surrounding the introduction of
private sector competition and asset sales is now seriously
restricting our economic growth and prosperity. It is
contributing to our most talented and productive leaving New
Zealand and fueling the growth of our second class citizens.
As just one example, government waste, bureaucracy and empire
building has stifled innovation and efficiency so deeply in
our health system that productivity for doctors and nurses
actually went down by up to 15% from 1999 to 2008, despite a
50% increase in government spending.
Another major roadblock to prosperity is our education system,
and how long do we think as a country we can allow a quarter
of all students to leave school without being able to read and
write properly? This shameful failure is much higher for those
in the poorer neighborhoods.
Sadly, real reform of health and education seems unlikely
under National and is not even on the radar for Labour and the
Greens. These parties have a lot to answer for, they claim to
have the solutions but they have always been at the root of
the problem.
Let’s look at one example of how the education standards of
underprivileged New Zealand, in particular, would benefit
hugely by a private educator leasing a school property from
the government using ACT’s “Schools Choice” policy under
an “open book” tendering format:
• The government offers for tender by lease an existing or
newly built school property to pre-qualified educators in the
private sector
• A fixed education fund (i.e. scholarship) per student is
paid by the government, allocated to parents opting to enroll
in Schools Choice, the parents choose the school
• Tendering educators compete by submitting a “fixed
fee” per student per annum
• The fixed fee total must be broken down into an “open
book” format showing the amount per operating cost item
(i.e. a “total disclosure” rent, power, equipment,
tuition, etc)
• The “profit” per student must also be disclosed as a
separate item prior to the total
• The provider must deliver a minimum educational standard
to meet contractual obligations
• Parents can apply to join the private school or opt back
into the public system if dissatisfied
• As more public schools are leased into the private sector
students could opt out of public and into private or transfer
from private to private or private to public at each parents
discretion
• Disruptive or delinquent children could be removed via a
mutually agreed student performance contract between the
educator and the parent, no government interference
• No zoning would exist, grandfather rights would be in
place for families until the last child is educated opening a
new place for a new family on a first come, first served basis
• For new schools built and leased, a first come, first
served basis would apply
The above example would deliver many positive outcomes for
underprivileged New Zealanders:
• The scholarship fund follows the student throughout their
education until university
• Zoning, parental income, ethnicity and location ceases to
be a barrier to entry
• Schools are contracted to parents to deliver a minimum
level of achievement
• Schools compete for students who now become valuable
income streams
• Schools compete for the best teachers to attract parents
and students
• Schools compete to deliver superior results to attract
parents
• Schools for difficult or delinquent students can be opened
• Schools for gifted and special needs students can be
opened
• Approved schools of any size can be opened
Under the current education system zoning locks the low income
and underprivileged families into the school in their
neighborhood. There are many Maori and Polynesian parents who
want their children to escape poor performing schools but
cannot afford to move house or a private education.
With a competitive education market schools will be forced to
achieve and deliver for parents or go broke. This model will
inject the right incentives into education and must improve
the standard of those New Zealand students at the bottom. To
argue otherwise is pure folly.
This example tendering process for educator service providers
follows the “open book” or total disclosure method because
transparency and disclosure will allow the government to
assess each educator more diligently, to guage their depth of
operating cost knowledge and to compare tenders accurately.
It is not advisable or appropriate for a very low tender to be
accepted, just for that educator to win the business then go
broke because they took a punt or didn’t understand their
true operating costs.
The same asset leasing principles would apply for a new or
existing public hospital ward leased out to a private
healthcare service provider for performing specific
operations. The increase in productivity would be substantial,
allowing a much greater throughput of patients, to lower
numbers on the waiting lists and lower health costs for the
taxpayer.
Some of the world’s most successful companies have been
transacting business using the “open book” method with
service providers and clients for many years. It is recognized
as probably the most sound best practice method of achieving
the optimum most consistent outcome for the lowest overall
cost consistently.
Business profitability, the big bogeyman of the left should be
seen as no more than “a fair days work for a fair days
pay” which is all it actually represents. Under the open
book method the profit rate-of-return can be measured,
controlled and queried if excessive or unrealistically low.
At the end of the day, in real life, only a win-win-win works
for all parties long-term, no party can succeed at the expense
of another for long or the relationship will eventually fail.
Only when our politicians develop courage, put electoral self
interest aside and use their imagination will sound creative
solutions such as the above be possible in New Zealand. I live
in hope but I won’t be holding my breath.
Back
to top of page >>>
14 July 09
Airlines
in the Market - who has the deepest pockets?
By
Frederick van Dorestein
In the commercial world today most would accept that fair
competition in a fair market is simply democratic business
principles in motion. But
is the aviation industry a fair market?
Research reveals that the Single Aviation Market (AUS/NZ),
the regional market and the international markets to
and from Australia and New Zealand are over saturated with
capacity and rivalry. Thus
creating a new phase of predatory commercialism unseen before.
Indeed, the global aviation industry is currently in more
turbulence than ever before since post world war two airline
development began to transform air transportation.
The problem has been the pace of development brought
about by unnatural globalisation policies introduced by
bureaucratic agenda and indifferent government policy.
Such policies have been based on the popularity of
cheap airfares. Politics
has been chasing the pulling power of satisfied voters at the
ballot box in lieu of promoting local business in the national
interest.
So
what of the national interest consequences…?
THE OPEN
MARKET POLICIES...
The open market aviation policy is best described as a
philosophy that applies no reasonable bilateral approach to
the influx of international business interests.
Or put another way, there has been an active political
disregard for the promotion of national airline companies and
associated supplier business residing in the regional
environment.
Such attitudes have not been isolated to the aviation industry
but have been widespread against most industries.
The opportunity for predatory markets to emerge
abounds.
The consequences of the continuation of these policies in the
aviation industry at all levels are profound.
Perhaps, the most vital is the effect a predatory
market has on operational safety.
Fortunately the computerised jet aircraft manufactured
today are very efficient and without a doubt have contributed
to maintaining high operating standards.
But an era of extreme cost cutting in the industry is
fast approaching as the market severely contracts.
THE
REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL DIVE...
The Asia Pacific Region has nosedived into uncertain territory
with revenue seats in the market (RPK’s) decreasing by 10% a
month, Jet Fuel costs are rising, premium travel falling, and
airfare revenue is plummeting due to reducing international
passenger numbers.
In the past year regional losses through misjudged Fuel
Hedging policies have amounted to some $6 Billion in increased
fuel costs. Even
with capacity (airline seats)
shrinking the regions airlines have witnessed fading Load
Factors from the mid seventies to the mid sixties.
The air travelling public are being “paid”
to fly through subsidised airfares to hold load factors and
maintain services. Profit
margins are plummeting as exampled by Singapore Airlines
suffering a recent 90%+ drop in profit following some 20% fall
off in passenger numbers.
The Virgin Blue Group has encountered a $100 million dollar
loss, Qantas is expected to lose profitability this financial
year. Air New
Zealand has downsized and is forecast to lose much of its
profitability due to falling long-range passenger numbers and
the predatory regional market set in motion by the rapid
expansion strategy of the Virgin machine in New Zealand and
across the Tasman. Amazingly
this stratagem was initiated in an acute recession by the
Virgin Blue Group whilst enduring substantial operating
losses.
So
what is the Branson Plan…?
THE VIRGIN
EXPRESS STRATEGY...
In 1996 the Virgin Group acquired a low cost, short haul
carrier and moved into the Belgium market with a new airline,
Virgin Express. By
the early 2000’s the company had successfully driven the
national Belgium airline, Sabena, out of the market.
The government fought back raising a new carrier, SN
Brussels, from the ashes of the old and by 2006 had
forced the Virgin Express airline into a merger.
Virgin Group Founder, Richard Branson approved the sale of
Virgin Express, which was merged into a new company called
Brussels Airlines. He
made considerable gains from the sale and transfer of
ownership.
References:
Industry
Journals and Reports,
Airline
Economic Factors, Wikipedia, Dominion Post
Back
to top of page >>>
20 May 09
Carbon
and Earth's Changing Atmosphere
By
Robert
Chouinard
Life on earth is limited by the amount of available carbon
that plants must have to form their vast array of organic
compounds. Thus,
one life form must die for another to live.
Nature demonstrates this fact everywhere you look. Many
millions of years ago the higher amount of available carbon
constituted a vastly more life-sustaining environment.
Giant plant eating reptiles flourished along with the
lush foliage to nourish their enormous bodies.
Today’s atmosphere couldn’t even begin to support
that level of life. Most
of the available carbon of that era is now locked away in
fossil fuels, limestone deposits, etc.
Only the activities of man in uncovering and burning
these fossil fuels can return some of that precious,
life-sustaining carbon.
Nature,
through this process of sequestering carbon in fossil fuels,
limestone deposits, etc., has severely limited its ability to
sustain life. Five
hundred and fifty years of cooling (The Little Ice Age- 1300 to 1850 AD) cooled the oceans and thus
further deprived the atmosphere of available carbon (CO2).
This resulted in a very life stressing condition which
brought on crop failures, blight, human malnutrition and
plague. There was
great suffering and the human population, during this period,
was greatly reduced. The
tail end of that Little Ice Age, approximately 1850 AD, is the
pre-industrial “Eden” that alarmists would have us return
to.
The
burning of fossil fuels releases carbon atoms (C) to combine
temporarily with oxygen molecules (O2) already in
the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide molecules (CO2).
These additional carbon atoms add to the available
carbon to increase living foliage on land or phytoplankton in
the sea which then release the oxygen molecules.
The insanity of sequestering CO2, as
seriously contemplated by our politicians, would deprive our
environment of the additional carbon atoms (C) and,
furthermore, deplete our environment of the atmospheric oxygen
molecules (O2) that they combine with.
Carbon
dioxide is not an element - it is a compound and like most
compounds will, eventually, revert back into the elements of
which it is composed (through the process of photosynthesis
back to carbon atoms and oxygen molecules).
It is also the essential link between, and part of
both, the carbon
cycle and the oxygen
cycle. Without
it there would be no life; in fact, life only exists in
proportion to its presence.
The earliest mammals from which we evolved co-existed
with dinosaurs 150 million years ago during very different
conditions, as mentioned.
Over the last 150 million years our atmosphere has
changed in three ways: the density has decreased; the oxygen
level has decreased; and the carbon dioxide level, especially,
has decreased to a tiny fraction of what it was.
Every one of these changes favors the ventilatory phase
of our respiration (release of CO2) over the
oxygenation phase (intake of O2).
The
ventilatory phase is far more efficient than the oxygenation
phase to start with. Making
matters worse, the above mentioned atmospheric changes on top
of numerous medical conditions further disadvantage the
oxygenation phase relative to the ventilatory phase. The
result is that many millions of people have poor health due to
low
blood oxygen levels and are close to respiratory
distress without knowing it.
Normally,
carbon dioxide concentration in our blood regulates our
breathing but when the oxygen level of our blood falls below a
critical level it takes over control telling us to breath
faster. Low blood
oxygen levels can be brought on by exercise which also raises
the blood carbon dioxide level justifying the increased
breathing. However,
if the low blood oxygen level is a result of poor respiratory
oxygenation for reasons, other than exercise, hyperventilation
results and havoc ensues.
The reason for the havoc is that rapid breathing
(hyperventilation), while causing an increase in blood oxygen
level, accomplishes nothing because it drops the carbon
dioxide level too low for the red blood cells to be able to
exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide.
Oxygen will not be released by the red blood cells for
cellular use without this exchange.
The result is panic and a life-threatening condition
requiring immediate medical intervention.
Deterioration
of our lungs with age is merely one of the medical
conditions alluded to which, eventually if we live long
enough, puts all of us at the risk of this kind of respiratory
distress. It
should be obvious that any increase in oxygen or carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is a benefit to everyone.
It
should also be obvious (if it wasn’t for Al Gore’s 300 million dollar disinformation campaign) that
reducing or sequestrating available carbon (CO2)
would have negative effects on the environment and humans,
especially if together with reduced global temperatures
we return to the pre-industrial “Eden” and another
Little Ice Age.
For
references and more details on respiration and health problems
see my earlier
article. To
hear a medical professional speak on the health benefits of
carbon dioxide, click
here.
Back
to top of page >>>
15 May 09
Compulsory
Government Education
By
Mike Webber
Origins
and Solutions Modern compulsory schooling began in Prussia in
1819, the first time in human history that education was
foisted upon a nation by force. The goals were simple:
obedient soldiers to the army, subservient workers to the
mines, submissive civil servants to the government, and
citizens who thought alike about major issues. Its purpose was
not to develop the intellect, but to socialize the children in
obedience and subordination.
In
1852, this system was forced onto Americans and within 50
years it ended school choice and created a vast government
monopoly.
In
1889, U.S. Commissioner of Education said that American
schools were scientifically designed to prevent over education
from occurring.
The
same system came to New Zealand in the education act of 1877.
Such
was a long leap toward state socialism, a vision that runs
counter to the proper purpose of education to prepare the
individual to be self reliant. The underlying premise of the
state system, is that the State is sovereign over the family.
The
adult literacy survey, published in 2000, found that 50% of
high school graduates had a substandard level of literacy and
20% were virtually completely illiterate and that 1 million
New Zealanders over the age of 16 had a substandard level of
literacy.
The
only way to ensure quality education is to remove the state
completely from curriculum, control, and delivery.
With
the State out of the picture, entrepreneurs would be free to
develop a myriad of educational solutions that would be
tailored to fit many different learning styles. New education
ideas, some not even conceived at this time, would emerge in a
free market of ideas and school choice.
The
so called free, state education is actually at least twice as
expensive as private schools if the cost is properly
calculated.
The
best option at the current time is to home school your
children. Home schooling is based on a foundational belief in
freedom. Such freedom allows families to teach whatever they
want, on their own schedule, in order to suit their
lifestyles. Very importantly, home school families don’t
take any money from the taxpayers.
Studies
show that children who are educated at home are happier,
better adjusted and more sociable than those at private or
public schools.
The
alternative is to turn children over to the government for a
considerable part of the year, where they will be subjected to
ideological indoctrination, inferior academic instruction, and
a one size fits all system that is antithetical to their
nature as individuals with very different needs. All children
need education, but parents, not government, should provide
it.
Children
are just programmed to learn; until state schools hit the shut
down button and extinguish the spark. As the records show,
literacy standards and percentages have steadily fallen since
Governments nationalised education.
In
controlling the education system the government is teaching
our children to accept the fundamental concept of Big Brother
government. It is the triumph of this institutionalized
government indoctrination system; few can imagine a different
way of doing things and so many leave school with nothing more
to aspire to than living off the efforts of others.
Life
is altered, often irreversibly, from a future of possibilities
and aspirations to an easy option of subsidized nothingness
that is fostered by welfarism. The logical outcome is gangs,
youth crime, drug abuse and high suicide rates when people are
paid systematically to do nothing; to aspire to nothing and
for the illiterate or near illiterate it is very difficult to
avoid this situation.
State
schools have increasingly been indoctrinating children in
political correctness and teaching that are no absolutes, or
reason. This means that there is no such thing as truth,
knowledge, standards of right and wrong, and that almost
anything goes. Acceptance of this idea will gradually destroy
the rational mind.
It
has resulted in generations of state dependant people whose
minds have been socially engineered to believe that only the
state knows what’s best for them.
Back
to top of page >>>
15 May 09
Is the Auckland growth management
really so “smart”?
By
David Willmott, Centre for Urban and Transport Studies
(CUTS.org.nz)
Current “Smart Growth”-style planning and control of
development is costing Auckland about $5 billion annually in
direct and indirect costs, including for lost productivity,
quite apart from social and environmental effects which are
demonstrably increasing and arguably net-negative. The
economic costs alone translate to almost 2% off Gross National
Product. Are we getting developmental value in excess of this
sort of cost?
So what is “smart growth”?
Smart growth is an American architect-driven town planning
construct. Its objective is the sustainable commitment of the
public to a planner-envisioned “designer city” wholly and
integrally planned in ever-increasing detail to accommodate a
doubled population roughly corresponding with a 50-year
visioning horizon, assuming current technologies, nostalgias,
and expectations continue unchanged throughout that period, by
controlling development types locations and
inter-accessibilities – or attempting to.
The three absolute pre-requisites for a smart growth-style
“designer city” are (i) demonization of (natural,
“uncontrolled”) expansion as “sprawl”. By appealing to
the “stop the world” side of human nature, those
preferring all development to be subject to community control
can thereby ensure “implosion” of all future development
within strictly enforced “Metropolitan Urban Limits”. (ii)
detailed design of the implosion, including (a) location of
all subsequent development and its control of its usage, and
(b) provision of collectivised transport modes which, together
with “management” (restriction) of uncontrolled travel,
can deliver the required activity patterns. (iii) financial
incentives and disincentives – including consenting delays
and charges - to ensure outcomes provide mitigations at levels
acceptable to those considered injuriously affected, and are
“sustainable” (as defined in the consenting process).
Five other primary characteristics of SG designer cities are
(iv) the identification promotion and protection of selected
activity corridors and centres, (v) the commitment to,
development of, and coercive promotion and heavy
cross-subsidisation (from road-user taxes) of a rail-based
public transport system to anchor and force-feed these
activity nodes, (vi) encouraged, incentivised or enforced
densification of residential development within walking
distance of these corridors and nodes to ensure activity
occurs as and where designed, (vi) assurance that
appropriately world-class standards will be achieved, and a
quality city result, by means of detailed control of every
element of the built environment, (viii) active discouragement
(“management”) of the use of private vehicles by
minimising new urban road construction, restricting parking,
allocating roadspace for morally superior bus users, and the
imposition of tolls, parking charges, road user taxes and rate
hikes (for cross-subsidisation of public transport) as if
congestion costs and delays are not in themselves a sufficient
deterrent to peak period travel and parking..
Supported by the MfE and legislation, the Auckland Regional
Council adopted smart growth as an off-the-peg response to the
RMA’s requirement for a Regional Growth Strategy
(“Plan”), especially as it gave vision-based planners a
commanding role in the pursuance of a “designer city” for
Auckland
Is the “designer city” delivering “the goods”?
After New Zealand’s effective bankruptcy in 1984, a less
restricted ie “more personal choice, more market” economy
was prescribed by the IMF on bailing us out. Town planning had
become overly restrictive of efficient development and
commerce; the RMA displaced it to “enable people and
communities” (including companies) to do pretty much
whatever they wanted with their land and travel plans, with
simpler, easier, quicker and cheaper consents only subject to
environmental effects assessments and mitigations.
These, then, are “the goods” the RMA was intended to
deliver. However, with effects assessments becoming ever more
detailed, and environmental bottom lines long since devolved
into high jump bars, the Royal Commission advises that we will
need to change our attitudes to, once more, subject all such
choices to the dictates of the Plan. So much for “more
market” and enablement of personal and community (including
company) wants and needs.
To attract support, Regional & District Plans have to
aspire to world-class developmental standards, promise
socio-economic “vibrancy” and salvation from all
conceivable environmental calamities, and ensure perpetual
sustainability of the vision itself. In short, they have to
promise delivery of all things to all men, with no
complications such as downsides or unanticipated consequences.
Any such detrimental effects of delivery need not concern
political signatories, who are quickly converted to co-workers
in the creation of Designer City. After all they are signing
off on a vision, not a guarantee, and who are they to deny
strident environmentalist and media support for the vision
promoted? And how can anyone with half an understanding of the
immense socio-economic complexities driving cities, sell the
need for compromise to the special interest groups dominating
consultation processes? And if planners believe they can halt
and implode the socio-economic drivers of natural urban
expansion, why would they not believe they can do so at no
cost, with no detrimental effects, and with no reversionary
feedback mechanisms? The role of the brotherhood of planning
visionaries and urban designers is to bend the city to suit
their design for it, regardless of such trifling
inconveniences.
In consequence, the old profession of town planning is
resurgent, expanding dramatically in scope and pervasiveness,
to accommodate all the expert advisers and designers now
needed to ensure any changes contribute to the (evolving)
urban design, as revealed by appropriate interpretation of the
Regional and District Planning documents, thus to “ensure
sustainable outcomes”.
The benefits and costs of a designer city.
First, the positives. The one thing smart growth advocates
promise above all is quality. Quality of developmental
decision-making, quality of physical appearances (through
“urban design” panels), and in attaining world-class
standards. The consultation process ensures the neighbours get
only the highest standards of development and the maximum in
amenity mitigations, regardless of affordabilities. No
starting today with a self-made mud hut on a piece of
affordable swamp land with a rainwater tank and porta-loo, and
upgrading it with lean-tos as needed and affordable. The next
generation can be assured that all new land development and
houses built today are designed down to the last detail with
full and permanent servicing ensuring no drain on the public
purse for 50 years more, and with housing fully safe,
world’s best standards, and unaffordable.
The resulting housing price-tag in parts of Auckland is
already approaching nine times household income, compared with
the three times paid by our parents, for houses which remain
standing today. Even nine times is just fine, as long as the
market valuation keeps rising faster than incomes, and as long
as inflation rots away our mortgages and transfers to the
owners down payments (as yet unearned income) from the next
generation (So much for inter-generational equity!) But we are
now borrowed to the hilt and foreclosure is happening, both
personally and collectively.
Smart growth also causes or sustains inequity on a massive
scale, both temporally and spatially. Temporally, house price
escalation has effectively transferred an average of about
$300,000 from the current generation of house-seekers to
recent retirees who bought their house forty years ago.
Spatially, urban land values a decade ago were far more
equitised by the equitisation of automobility-enhanced
intra-urban accessibility than they were immediately post-war,
when few owned cars, and radial public transport railroaded
workers and shoppers downtown. The latter ensured that about
50% of jobs and services thus land value were also located
downtown. The current enforced re-centralisation of much
development, coupled with growing congestion and declining
inter-accessibility, is reversing that long-term trend to
equitisation of land values.
As the restrictions controls and costs of development, usage,
and inter-accessibility bite ever deeper, constraining
personal and communal choices and activities, frustrations
rise until the public changes its attitudes (thus morals,
lifestyles, choices and behaviours) to conform with the
Plan’s requirements, or departs for more personally and
commercially-enabling climes. It is widely presumed that the
frictional heat will rise slowly enough for the frogs to
adjust to it and stay within the pot. However, migration to
Australia, and between American SG designer cities and
comparatively unconstrained cities (such as Houston, Atlanta)
is accelerating, particularly for teachers, nurses and other
low-paid professionals in search of an affordable family home.
The other claimed benefit, presumed energy savings, leans
heavily on peak hour patronage of public transport on the city
end of a city-bound run. But energy is consumed day-long. Per
passenger-km actually delivered, day-long, buses are no more
energy-efficient than cars, and rail transit is substantially
less so. The higher cost of implosive development per m2
reflects the energy content in steel and cement being far
higher than residential wooden construction. Urban expansion
happens naturally because it maximises choice while also
costing least; - a sure sign of incorporated energy savings.
While Section 32 of the RMA required costs and other downsides
of Policies and Plans to be an input to planning, urban
complexities effectively preclude any credible attempt at
this. That problem was removed when the Local Government Act
2002 enshrined smart growth regardless, ensured “general
competence” by fiat, and legalised Long Term Council and
Community Plans (translatable as “smart growth”). (check
out underlined wording)
Thus the cost of smart growth is not widely considered, and is
barely apparent, except as the fees, charges, contributions,
mitigations, perfections, safety insurances, and general
hassles, disjunctions, delays and holding costs associated
with any particular development. But these are minor costs
compared with the economic debilitation imposed by urban
implosion.
Before the war, public transport was the only means of
longer-distance travel for most Aucklanders. Consequently,
half all urban employment was downtown. Post-war
automobilisation released pent-up social and economic forces
favouring decentralisation (including equitisation of
inter-accessabilities and land values). Today downtown employs
just 10%, rendering radial public transport unusable except
for up to 5% of total daily urban trips (currently about
3.5%). Jobs and services have gone to where most people are;
no need shift housing whenever you change jobs. The reversal
of such benefits by forced implosion costs, and costs dearly.
Direct costs are manifest in congestion, the truly appalling
cost of rail-based public transportisation, the excessive
percentage of total wealth now bound up in over-specified high
cost development (especially housing), and the overload and
retroactive upsizing of central services designed for
traditional densities.
Rail transit and buslanes alone will burden rate- and
tax-payers by close to $10 billion for the planned 155km
system including for the opportunity cost of “free land”
for sole-use corridors. Annual subsidies are rising towards
$300 million. The now-necessary $600 million “central
interceptor” sewer is just one consequence of service
overloads, and the cost falls to ratepayers, not developers
thus users. Annual congestion costs estimated at $800 million
with 1994 data would amount to $1.5 billion today were it not
for a recession. The residual value (including energy content)
destroyed in prematurely densified “brownfields” adds
perhaps 30% to redevelopment cost Yet all such costs are
willingly accommodated in a nostalgic reach for the
(dis-)benefits of re-centralisation.
Indirect costs further reduce urban productive inefficiency
and compound the losses. One major industrialist doubled its
trucking fleet between 1992 and 2001 to distribute the same
amount of product, not because of peripheral urban expansion
but because congestion halved daily deliveries per truck. It
then added the cost of distribution depots and double-handling
to address the uncertainty of travel times and ensure
just-on-time delivery, again adding to product cost. Tradesmen
achieve two jobs daily when speedy inter-access previously
enabled three. And households sacrifice family time and sleep
to “beat the rush”. Investment and development proposals
delayed or precluded by planning requirements also represent
losses, as do developments located other than optimally from
the producer/distributor viewpoint.
Altogether, the obvious direct and indirect costs can be
assessed at easily exceeding $5 billion annually. Moreover,
inadequate productive efficiency has resulted in our living
beyond our means, transferring our debts onto future
generations until our foreign debtors call up their loans, and
economic collapse ensues. That is hardly inter-generationally
equitable, quite apart from sustainable
Restrictive implosion versus enabling expansion
The Royal Commission’s appointment resulted from widespread
public concern that Regional and District Plans were not
delivering on their purposes and promises. At least, not yet;
- can/will the Commission’s work really lead to Auckland
becoming a world class city which also remains personally and
commercially enabling, democratically governable, and
affordable, both for its citizens and for commerce?
Current indications are that, apart from shifting deckchairs
around, there are no proposals for a Royal Commission on how
to enable the private sector to improve Auckland’s
productive efficiency. Deckchair riders can hardly govern the
urban design machine when they get only one sort of driving
advice from Auckland’s alluring smart-growth “designer
city” culture – how to constrain growth and drive up
costs, rather than how to enable their reduction.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 May 09
The
Nature and Origins of Racial Subversion
by
Reuben P. Chapple
The notion that particular groups of people meet together
secretly or in private to plan various courses of action, and
that some of these plans actually exert a significant
influence on particular historical developments is typically
rejected out of hand and dismissed as the figment of a
paranoid imagination.
In
this case, the evidence is clear, and overwhelming. “Group
rights”
aka
“identity politics” are something invented and promoted by
revolutionary Marxist-Leninists seeking the overthrow of our
existing society and its replacement with a model of their own
choosing.
Marx
claimed that society is evolving toward socialism as the
inevitable result of progressive [sic] change through a
struggle of opposites. He called this process
"dialectical materialism." An existing condition (thesis)
comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is
attempting to emerge. Out of the conflict between these two
opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges.
This is then put through the process again as the new thesis,
until full socialism is achieved.
Lenin
expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on
economic relationships to take in social and political
relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as
a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to
identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict,
thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and
political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of
socialism.
In
the 1930s, Lenin devised a strategy for weakening and
subverting democratic societies that changed the nature of
revolutionary politics forever, while profoundly increasing
the threat that revolutionaries posed.
Until
then, Communist parties in non-Communist countries had openly
declared their anti-capitalist, anti-Western and
anti-democratic agendas. They called for the “dictatorship
of the proletariat” and advocated “civil war” in the
western democracies to bring this about.
Because
most people in free societies remained unconvinced of the need
for a violent socialist revolution, Communists remained a
fringe minority with little political clout.
In
1935, the Communists adopted a new tactic, which they dubbed
“the Popular Front.” The agendas of the Popular Front were
framed in terms of the fundamental values of the societies the
Communists meant to destroy.
In
place of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and
“international civil war,” the Communists organised
coalitions for “democracy, justice and peace.”
Nothing
changed in the philosophy and goals of the Communists, but by
seemingly advocating “democracy, justice and peace” they
were able to forge broad alliances with individuals and groups
who had no inkling of their true agendas, or believed them to
be less sinister and dangerous than they were.
Communists
initially selected as prime targets various racial, religious
and national minorities, and intellectual groups that exerted
a direct effect on public opinion. Working through the Popular
Fronts they formed with “liberal” factions, the Communists
were able to hide their conspiratorial activities, form
“peace,” “human rights” and “anti-racism”
movements, and greatly increase their effectiveness by
mobilising non-Communists to do their work for them. These are
the people once referred to by Lenin referred as “useful
idiots.”
Groups
who can be helped by Communists to see that they are
“marginalised” from capitalist society due to their race,
gender, class and sexual preference have long proved
particularly fertile ground for those looking to promote
dialectical conflict. Marxist-Leninists, worldwide, have
practised for decades a process of agitating amongst such
groups in order to achieve a breakdown of social cohesion
leading to eventual socialist control.
The
intellectual pedigree of the United Nations Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous People traces directly to the early 20th
Century writings of Lenin and Stalin on a topic they called
“The National Question." And the Declaration carries
with it the same subversive Marxist-Leninist intent.
Around 1905, Lenin and Stalin identified the fact that Czarist
Russia consisted not only of ethnic Russians, but upwards of
80 formerly tribal subject peoples, who’d been conquered by
the Czars over the preceding 500 years and forcibly Russified.
In
order to expand the Bolshevik support base, Lenin and Stalin
promised these groups “the right to manage their own
affairs,” “the right to self-determination,” “the
right to speak, read, write, use, and be taught in their own
language” etc. This currently fashionable sloganeering is
actually more than 100 years old.
After
World War I the multi-ethnic empires of Austro-Hungary and
Czarist Russia to which the National Question was first
applied to stir up revolution were no more. Lenin and Stalin
then directed “The National Question” to undermining the
hold of European nations over their colonial possessions, so
as to deprive them of their sources of cheap labour, raw
materials, and markets for finished goods.
Commencing
in the 1930s, Communists all over the world were instructed to
promote the independence aspirations of minority ethnic groups
in order to bring them into violent conflict with the status
quo, thus undermining national consensus and creating the
conditions for a socialist revolution to occur.
Locally,
the Communist Party of New Zealand (“CPNZ”) soon
identified a minority strand of Maori opinion favouring race
separatism dating back to the late 1840s. These sentiments
were initially centred on the Tainui and Tuwharetoa tribes
that never signed the Treaty of Waitangi.
As
we have seen above, Communist strategy is to find a group with
a grievance, then promise to help them to get what they want.
The CPNZ ran in the 1935 General Election on a platform that
included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the
point of complete separation.” Here was the point at which
this catch-cry first entered our national discourse.
At
first, the CPNZ had little success with such a line. Maori
were primarily a rural people and had little contact with
Communists, who were mostly found in urban areas with a
substantial manufacturing base.
This
was soon to change. Over the period 1945 – 1975, Maori
underwent what University of Waikato demographers Pool and
Pole describe as “the most rapid urbanisation of any group
of people, anywhere.”
This
brought Maori flooding into the universities and trade unions,
the CPNZ’s main recruiting grounds. As well, the
Marxist-Leninists who’d begun colonising the nation’s
universities in the 1930s had by the early 1970s achieved
critical mass in many departments, particularly those
specialising in the study of society. Their growing dominance
on faculty hiring committees allowed them to exclude anyone
not sharing (or at least sympathetic to) their views.
Meet
Antonio Gramsci, yet another disreputable Communist held up as
an intellectual icon by the academic Left. In the 1920s,
Gramsci realised that the western democracies were too
attached to the benefits of individual rights, patriotism, and
faith in God as a source of transcendent moral authority.
These ideas were deeply engrained and would not be easily
surrendered. Instead of violent Marxist revolution, Gramsci
advocated a "long march through the institutions before
socialism and [moral] relativism were victorious."
Gramsci
believed that "capitalist bourgeois society" could
be seduced into accepting Communism through the gradual
seduction of the western mind. Accordingly, his adherents
sought control over culture, organised religion, media,
education, and other areas where intellectual discourse takes
place.
Beginning
in the 1960s or even earlier, western university students have
been subjected to organised academic brainwashing by disciples
of Gramsci who have embedded themselves the academy with the
express purpose of using it as a factory of ideological
reproduction.
Graduates
of this indoctrination programme were absolutely convinced
they belonged to an intellectual elite. How did they know
this? They were constantly told how smart they were for
accepting the programming.
They
weren't going to argue. Most kids that age think they know
everything anyway.
The
students were told they were learning “progressive” new
ideas instead of Marxism. They were programmed with all the
principles of Marxism without the label. If you told them they
were Marxists or Communists, they’d respond with a pitying
smile, eye-rolling, and accuse you of “seeing Reds under the
bed.”
Having
internalised the system of values upon which their membership
of “Club Virtue” depends most tertiary graduates over the
last forty years display a strong emotional resistance to
having it questioned. If you disagree with them you are
racist, sexist, fascist, misogynist or just plain stupid.
Rational discourse with such people is impossible.
After
graduating, these “useful idiots” slithered forth from the
academy into the media, education system, trade unions, Labour
Party, entertainment industry, churches and other institutions
that shape society’s governing ideas. As a result, the
political centre of gravity has moved steadily leftward over
several generations. This is clearly no accident.
The
origins of both the UN's pronoucements on the
"rights" of "indigenous peoples" and
“Maori Sovereignty” lie in Marxist National Question
theory, which the Marxist-Leninists and their witless enablers
have now moved into the centre of respectable public
discourse. Thirty years ago anyone pushing this line would
have been regarded as dangerously deluded. Now, through the
process outlined above, it has been successfully
“mainstreamed.” Support for “Maori Sovereignty” is
today regarded in many intellectual circles as a badge of
“progressivism.”
In
“Preferential Policies: An International Perspective”
Black American academic, Thomas Sowell records the downstream
effect of government policies promoting identity politics.
Sold as promoting inter-group harmony, Sowell found that
wherever such policies have been tried, they invariably
expanded over time in scale and scope, benefited already
advantaged members of the preference group (those with the
'smarts' to work the system), and increased rather than
decreased inter-group polarisation. In many places they have
brought about decades-long civil wars.
Can
anyone else see where we might be headed should we not act now
to derail the “Maori Sovereignty” gravy train?
Back
to top of page >>>
3 May 09
Rights are
often the wrong answer
Daniel McCaffrey
The problem with “rights” based solutions is that they
don't solve anything.
They create a banquet for lawyers and leave the aggrieved with
worthless bits of paper or worse no solution at all.
Sometime ago in Britain a solution for homelessness was to
create a “right to housing.“
Sounds good.
People should not freeze on the streets if they have a right
to housing. Any person who was homeless had a “right” to
housing of some sort or another.
This led to local authorities who were responsible for housing
putting the homeless in bed and breakfasts, cheap hotels and
any other form of accommodation they could find.
Sounds like a solution.
It wasn't.
It was enormously expensive and a futile solution to what were
really other problems.
In no time boarding houses and cheap hotels filled up with
people with serious mental problems.
The reason some people could not get housing was that they
were mad.
What they needed was treatment for their condition.
Homelessness was merely a symptom of this.
Cure their mental problems and they could keep a job and keep
a roof over their heads like any other citizen.
All that was happening was one element of Government was
reducing its costs and dumping them on some other section of
government.
But it was not only the mad who needed another solution.
Some homeless people could not get housing or maintain it
because they had a serious drug addiction problem.
When they joined the mentally unstable in the cheap boarding
houses a social cocktail of the most destructive kind
followed.
They needed a cure for their drug addiction.
With their incredibly expensive addiction to ciggarettes
alcohol and illegal hard drugs removed they would their wages
or the dole to spend on rent not drugs.
Another group of people could not get housing because they
lacked employment.
Had steps being taken to qualify them for a job or by giving
tax relief to stimulate local employers and consumers to
employ more people their housing problem would go away.
Another group were homeless because they failed to gather the
rental bond to get into decent rental accommodation. All they
needed was some financial assistance or guarantee to enable
them to get together a bond.
By setting up a rights framework the only ones who prospered
were providers of short-term accommodation, and the housing
rights lawyers who campaigned for this outcome. The homeless
stewed away with no real solutions for their problems.
According people “rights” where the realities cannot be
delivered and other problems are the cause of their misery is
a fraud.
The extension of the human rights paradigm to cover a spectrum
of claims and supposed remedies to social problems is
everywhere a failure.
Rights are a legal concept.
Real solutions to real problems are always preferable.
If I am hungry, “food rights” are useless.
I need a job, an income, a piece of land, some capital, a
pension, assistance from my relatives.
I need food. Not to sit and watch the enrichment of lawyers
and advocates who will spend time and money setting up a
rights system and contest it while I starve.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 May 09
Te
Arawa – the historical facts
By Ross Baker
Te Arawa has just been given the Rotorua lakes and is about to
get $500 million from the Crown in the “Treelords”
settlement. If it had not been for the Tiriti o Waitangi, the
missionaries, the Crown and the people of New Zealand in the
1820’s to the 1870’s, it is more than likely Te Arawa
would have lost their land and lakes to a more powerful
“rebel” tribe. Although they did not sign the Tiriti o
Waitangi, it protected them and their lands from being taken
by others. Britain had kept her promise to protect “all the
people of New Zealand and their property”, irrespective of
race colour or creed, but no more so than in Te Arawa’s
case!!!
Since the “mythical” arrival of Te Arawa in the canoe
“Te Arawa” at Maketu in 1340 and as their numbers
increased, Te Arawa split into many small tribes, some moving
north to Tauranga, some south to Matata and some inland to
Rotorua and Taupo. These tribes were constantly at war with
each other as well as travelling north to annoy Ngapuhi. As
there was no unity between the tribes of Te Arawa, Te Arawa
never progressed until British law, order and protection
arrived under the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.
The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found
people already inhabiting these areas. These people were
called Ngati Hotu and were described as, “of non-Māori
appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Te Arawa
drove these people to extinction.
In March 1828, a party of Te Arawa visiting the North were
lucky to escape with their lives when they were suspected of
causing the death of Hongi Hika through witchcraft. They were
however, given protection by the missionaries and sent back to
the Bay of Plenty on the ships Herald and Haweis.
In 1830, Hans Homman Felk, a Dane who had been a pirate and
later changed his name to Philip Tapsell, arrived in Maketu.
Tapsell began trading flax for muskets. So imperative for Te
Arawa to arm themselves with muskets, much of the food
gathering etc was neglected for growing and scraping flax.
Land was also fought over between the tribes of Te Arawa to
grow their crops of flax. Tapsell later opened a trading post
on Mokoia Island in Lake Rotorua.
In August 1831, a deputation of Te Arawa men went to the Bay
of Islands seeking a missionary to come and live amongst them.
In November, Thomas Chapman set up a mission station at Te
Kouto next to Te Arawa’s main pa at Ohinemutu. The arrival
of the missionaries started to bring peace between the tribes
of Te Arawa.
Between 1832 and 1834, there was much warfare between Ngapuhi
of the north and Te Arawa. 1835 saw a Matamata tribe under Te
Waharoa take the Maketu pa, destroying Tapsell’s trading
post. Te Arawa retaliated taking the pa of Te Tumu, an ally of
Te Waharoa. Te Waharoa again retaliated but was defeated with
heavy loss to Te Arawa. Te Arawa re-occupied Maketu.
During the next year, desultory warfare broke out between Te
Arawa and the Ngati Haua with great casualties on both sides.
In 1840, the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed giving protection
and equal rights to “all the people of New Zealand”. New
Zealand became British soil under British law; a law that
would take some time to unite and protect “all the people of
New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
In November 1842, a series of incidents occurred between the
Te Arawa of Maketu and Ngaiterangi of Tauranga. Although there
were still many minor squabbles between those of Tauranga and
Maketu, peace was largely established between Te Arawa by 1843
with the appointment of resident magistrates and the British
troops.
Great progress was made in Rotorua between 1842 and 1860.
Agriculture had taken off with several flourmills operating in
the area, which only a generation before had been a violent,
disunited group of smallish tribes. Many schools had been
established and many Maori magistrates had been appointed. The
Tiriti o Waitangi had brought peace, protection and prosperity
to the people of Te Arawa.
In 1863, Te Arawa announced that no reinforcements were to
pass through their territory to assist the Waikato who at the
time were fighting with the Government troops. Waikato was
hindering the progress of New Zealand by refusing to allow a
road to be built through their territory and the threat of an
attack on Auckland. Te Arawa were assisted by Government
troops.
However in 1865, a much more serious threat to final peace was
making itself felt in the new cult of Hauhauism. In May, Te
Arawa were once more involved in battle with this rebel force
under their notorious leader Kereopa at Te Tapira near
Murapara. Te Arawa, while suffering great loss were able to
hold them off until Government reinforcements under the
command of William Mair arrived. In September, a force of Te
Arawa under the command of Mair again engaged a large number
of these rebels at Matata, finally defeating them and driving
them out.
In 1867, Te Arawa again saw warfare in the Rotoru district. A
Waikato party had attacked Rotorua while most of the fighting
men were at Tauranga. This time Gilbert Mair, brother of
William with his troops reached the district just in time to
engage the enemy at Te Koutu. The Waikato had occupied the
north and west tenches of a long abandoned pa site. Finally,
the Waikato were driven off leaving bodies of a number of
their party on the fields. If Gilbert Mair and his troops had
not reached Rotoru in time, Waikato would more than likely
have taken Rotorua, slaughtering its remaining inhabitants.
In March 1867, troops were sent from Tauranga to attack a
large number of Hauhaus who had thrown up a defensive work at
Puraku, just south of the present Tarukena settlement. The
defences were destroyed but hardly had the troops arrived back
in Rotorua before the rebels returned and rebuilt Puraku into
a strong defended site. Another attack was made, this time
successful in chasing the rebels well into the Mamaku forest.
In January 1868, there was further trouble when a large party
of Hauhaus (Tuhoe) came down from the Urewera country and
raided many villages in the Ohiwa district. A group of 100 Te
Arawa men were engaged to assist the Government troops in
pursuing the Hauhau up the Waimana valley.
In July 1868, Te Kooti escaped from the Chatham Island and
began his bloodthirsty, violent campaign. For many months the
country was in an uproar over his ability to strike hard and
run. During this time a contingent of Te Arawa men were
engaged with the British troops.
In February 1870, Te Kooti struck at Rotorua and due to his
skilful tactics almost caught its inhabitants off guard.
Fortunately Gilbert Mair, suspecting what might be happening,
rushed through to Rotorua from Tapapa just in time to engage
Te Kooti’s party who had created havoc among the settlements
and cultivations along Tihi-o- Tonga ridge. Te Kooti and his
men had reached what is now the centre of the City of Rotorua
when the first shots were fired and a running battle ensued
which followed the course of the Rotorua – Taupo highway for
some six miles. The final battle took place at the base of the
Tumunui Mountain with Te Kooti being soundly beating and a
number of his best men lost.
For the next year, the Government engaged Gilbert Mair and his
troops to patrol and protect Te Arawa people and their lands
(Kaingaroa) from the marauding rebels.
With the Government’s protection now firmly established,
this was the end of warfare in Te Arawa lands. A constabulary
was established at Te Koutu by men who had formally been in
Gilbert Mair’s troops. Over the next century, schools,
shops, banks, hotels, churches and hospitals were built,
businesses and agriculture flourished. Roads, rail and air
joined Rotorua to the rest of the world. In 1962, Rotorua
became a city. While Te Arawa had been constantly at war and
in fear to protect themselves and their lands since 1340, they
could now progress knowing the law would protect them and
their property. Titles to land were issued and land could only
be sold if the seller was willing with fully documented
evidence being kept at Archives of all transactions.
The majority of this information is from, “A Pocket History
of Rotorua” by Don Stafford written in 1975. Don Stafford
wrote this book by interviewing Te Arawa elders and
researching the “true” history of Te Arawa prior to 1975
and before the next generation of Te Arawa could see the big
dollars from rewriting, distorting or select researching their
history to defraud the people who did so much for them, some
even paying the ultimate price, to protect them and their
lands from being taken from them by other tribes and rebels
between 1820 to 1870. While the Government owes Te Arawa for
their loyalty, in most cases for Te Arawa’s own gain or
protection, Te Arawa owes the Titiri o Waitangi, the
Government and the people of New Zealand for the protection of
its people and its lands. Mr Stafford states in the preface,
“I am confident that a fuller understanding of the
contributions made in the past by earlier people of this area
can only highten the appreciation of what we have today. If
the material in this little book helps to do this, it will be
well justified”, Don Stafford. 1975.
To claim these lands back, now that they are in full
production, which were purchased on a willing seller/willing
buyer basis over a century ago, is very ungrateful to the
people of New Zealand.
In 1889, Gilbert Mair on behalf of the Government purchased
land that is now known as the Kaingaroa Forest. While this
land would grow exotic trees, pastures for farming were
unsuccessful until the element cobalt was introduced in
1940/50. While trees flourished, the cost to plant them and
then wait 25 to 30 years for a return could only be undertaken
by the Government. The Crown purchase gave Te Arawa instant
capital and employment for its people. The tribes affiliated
to this area agreed to sell the land, even digging up their
old chief to accept the money from Gilbert Mair. This land was
bought and planted in trees by the people of New Zealand as
security for “all the people of New Zealand”. The Crown
has no right to return it to Te Arawa, especially now it is in
full production, it belongs to the people of New Zealand -
they bought the land and grew the trees on it!!!
It must also be remembered, Te Arawa today are not the people
that sold this land in 1889. Since this time, they have
intermarried mainly with the people they claim stole their
land. As a past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent,
Mr John Clark stated, “Maori today are a people with Maori
ancestry as one sees in legislation”.
The Kaingaroa Forest was bought on a willing seller/willing
buyer basis. Gilbert Mair was a loyal and trusted friend of Te
Arawa as can be seen from the respect they showed each other
in 1889.
Back
to top of page >>>
3 May 09
NZ should not support the United States War of Terror
By Vincent Anderson
On the 20th April, John Key said on the TV1 Breakfast Show,
that if he were to send SAS troops to Afghanistan it would be
to help fight the ‘war on terror’ and al-Qaeda. This was a
bare faced lie and he knows it. The ‘war on terror’ is not
about fighting global terrorism but expanding the American
world empire, geostrategic control of resources and countries,
and the expansion of state power.
Iraq was invaded in the name of the ‘war on terror'.
Everyone is aware that the reasons for the invasion of that
country have all proven to be false. There were no weapons of
mass destruction capable of hitting Europe in 40 minutes.
There were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Iraq
had nothing to do with the events of 911. It was definitely
not about spreading Democracy and overthrowing a tyrant who
persecuted his people.
All the war has brought is untold suffering to the people of
Iraq. What has been inflicted upon that country is nothing
short of genocide. Over 1.3 million Iraqis have died since
2003. 2 Million Iraqis have been displaced inside of Iraq and
3 million forced to leave the country. The infrastructure of
the entire country has been flattened and depleted uranium
spread throughout. This came after 13 years of near total
sanctions that by some estimates were said to have killed over
1 million Iraqis, mostly children.
It is plain to see that these crimes were not committed for
the hollow reasons we were told. In essence it boils down to
two main reasons - geostrategic control of the country and its
oil.
Although people are willing to accept that the world was
brazenly lied to in regard to Iraq. They are not willing to
see that they were also lied to about the reasons for invading
Afghanistan. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture
Osama Bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban
regime which had provided support and safe harbour to
al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as
policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations
that harbour them.
So what happened to Bin Laden? We never hear about him anymore
do we? At 11am on the morning of September 11, the Bush
administration had already announced that al-Qaeda were
responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. They
knew this before the dust of the Twin Towers had settled. When
the Taliban refused to give up Bin Laden because of US refusal
to provide evidence of his involvement, the war was launched
on the 7th October 2001. How did the United States know that
al-Qaeda were responsible before investigating and why did
they not just hand over the evidence they had to avoid war?
The answer is because the official story regarding the events
of 911 is a fallacy and the truth to what happened that
fateful day is now starting to see the light.
A Danish scientist recently has written a scientific document
stating that nano-thermite was found in the WTC rubble. He
appeared on a Danish news channel explaining himself, see the
interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
Thermite is a mixture of aluminum and rust powder which react
to produce intense heat that can reach 2500 degrees C, hot
enough to cut steel. This is the smoking gun that proves that
the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. This
also explains how the towers fell at free fall speed, defying
the laws of physics by taking the path of most resistance and
encountering none. All is explained when you realize it was a
controlled demolition.
Other prominent individuals have also come forward to question
the official story including Former Italian President
Francesco Cossiga. Member of the Japanese parliament, Yukihisa
Fujita, also questioned the official story in a sitting of
parliament on January 10th 2008. See the entire event with
subtitles here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
... a&aid=7803
Eight years on from the tragic event and people are starting
to wake up from their hypnosis and see the wood through the
trees. If people would investigate what happened that day,
instead of believing the same lying group of criminals who
brought them the war in Iraq, it would soon become apparent
that the attacks were not orchestrated from a cave on the
other side of the world. People are either too apathetic to do
their own research, willfully ignorant or just outright
gullible and have taken the biggest lie of all hook line and
sinker.
Large scale theatre war needs planning well in advance to be
executed successfully. Planning for the war in Afghanistan
took place well before 911. The Patriot Act was passed just 45
days after the attacks with virtually no debate and has
revoked most of the constitutional liberties that Bin Laden
was supposed to have hated so much.
Ironically, and very Orwellian, the very freedoms that the war
on terror is supposedly being fought to protect were taken
away in the name of protecting them.
As with Iraq, the Afghanistan war is not about the lies we are
told but instead the geostrategic control of the country and
its resources.
Afghanistan is known as the world’s largest supplier of
Opium. Surprisingly opium production was all but eradicated
under the Taliban. Since the invasion and occupation of that
country opium production is at an all time high . The poorest
country in the world produces 90% of the world’s heroin, how
do you suppose that they get their product to their markets in
the West? That’s right put two and two together, make the
connection, the current occupiers are the distributors . Of
course the world’s greatest superpower could continue the
Taliban policy of eradication. If it had done so the war on
drugs would be well on the way to being won. The narcotics
industry is a multibillion dollar industry and the hub of that
industry is Afghanistan.
Since Afghanistan and Iraq have been occupied massive
permanent military bases have been built in both countries.
The United States now has over 700 military bases worldwide.
It’s time to face the facts New Zealand. Since the United
States defeated Germany and Japan to bring an end to World War
two it has subsequently invaded 130 countries around the
world. Ironically, it was in the name of fighting the
formation of a Communist World empire that the American world
empire was formed. It is now in the name of fighting terrorism
that they continue to grow this empire. No longer does the
United States represent the bastion of freedom and liberty as
we are lead to believe. It now represents the exact opposite,
the suppression and torture of people and the destruction of
societies.
It is also time to really look at the nature of US democracy,
instead of allowing ourselves to be suckered by the
sensationalist media spectacle that passes for an election.
Presidential candidates are bought and paid for and are
subservient to the money that funds them. Wall Street and the
Energy industry run the show in the States.
This is the backdrop we need to consider before we send our
troops to Afghanistan to fight the war of terror. By us
sending our troops to Afghanistan, or our reconstruction teams
to Iraq, or the placement of Echelon on our soil we are
complicit. We are complicit in the wholesale slaughter of
millions of innocents and the perpetuation of a system of
tyranny that has been in operation for all of the last
century. If we are truly serious about world peace, we need to
make a moral stand now. We need to stop participating and we
need to unequivocally condemn these corrupt actions on the
world stage. If we don’t then we too are responsible for
these crimes against humanity.
Back
to top of page >>>
1 April 09
The
Role of Carbon Dioxide in the Origin of Hydrcarbons
By
Robert Chouinard
For
250 years, the prevailing working hypothesis of the origin of
oil (aka petroleum and hydrocarbons) is the “dead dinosaur
hypothesis” and dates back to the 18th century. Its
originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov,
who put it this way in a 1757 paper: “Rock oil (petroleum)
originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments
which, under the influence of increased temperature and
pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time,
transforms into rock oil.”
However,
a more scientific hypothesis originated in the 1950s when
Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about
petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory.
According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has
no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather,
oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic
material - marine carbonate deposits (limestone).
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Petroleum/petroleum.html
In
the laboratory, “…pure solid marble (CaCO3 –
aka metamorphic marine carbonate or limestone)
and iron oxide (FeO) wet with triple-distilled water are
subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar
(50,000 times atmospheric pressure) and temperatures to 2000
C. With no contribution of either
hydrocarbons or biological detritus, the CaCO3-FeO-H2O
system spontaneously generates, at the high pressures predicted theoretically, the suite of
hydrocarbons characteristic of natural petroleum.”
Hydrocarbons are compounds containing only hydrogen (H) and
carbon (C) atoms. Hence,
neither the calcium (Ca) nor oxygen (O3) part of
the CaCO3 is transformed, only the carbon (C), and
the iron oxide (FeO) acts only as a catalyst, under pressure,
to break down the H2O into elemental hydrogen (H)
and oxygen (O) to make hydrogen (H) available to combine with
the carbon (C).
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
In
the real world, tectonic processes such as one tectonic plate
sliding over another, if it occurs in the ocean, can cause
enormous amounts of limestone deposits (CaCO3, the
precursor to marble used in the above experiment) to subduct
(be buried) under the top plate and thus be subjected to
intense pressure and temperature.
The other ingredients such as iron would be present in
the earth’s mantle overlaying the wet limestone but the H2O
may also be present as elemental hydrogen and oxygen along
with the iron. Thus, all the ingredients and conditions of the
above laboratory experiment would very likely be present
within the earth’s mantle to form the suite of hydrocarbon
compounds we call oil.
Just as the food chain on land and in the sea depend on
atmospheric CO2
so does the formation of hydrocarbons. The first step starts
with atmospheric CO2
that is absorbed by the ocean and combined with calcium to
form dissolved
calcium carbonate (CaCO3). CaCO3 can
become concentrated in seawater and, as it reaches a critical
point, it begins to precipitate out in tiny grains the size of
sand. The
dissolved CaCO3 can also be used by marine
organisms for shells which also deposit to the bottom when the
organism dies. As
described above, this CaCO3 becomes the source of
carbon which combines with elemental hydrogen to form
hydrocarbons. The
enormous energy required for this miraculous transformation is
provided by the immense heat and pressure within the Earth’s
mantle. This
energy is converted and stored as chemical energy in the
molecular structure of the hydrocarbons and it is this energy
that is released to satisfy our energy needs.
Thus, this process starts with CO2
and water and should end with CO2
and water when the hydrocarbons are burned.
Unfortunately, lots of other compounds, including more
than 250
toxins, are created when we burn the
hydrocarbons.
During
combustion, CO2
is released to begin this endless cycle once more. Of course,
that makes oil renewable and we are not supposed to know that
and so there is great opposition to this theory from the peak
oil crowd. But why
does burning oil create so many toxins instead of reverting
back to pure CO2?
To answer this question it is necessary to understand something about carbon chemistry.
Carbon, an exceptional element, has the unique property of forming highly complex compounds,
many of which are found in living things. Carbon easily combines with itself to build up molecules
with an apparently endless variety of chain and ring structures. Carbon readily combines also
with hydrogen and oxygen and to a lesser extent with only a few other elements like nitrogen,
phosphorous and sulfur, yet it forms more than half the compounds known to science. The
current literature on the chemistry of carbon contains data on millions of carbon compounds
with many of them being toxic. For example, when flaring (burning off the gas that comes
from oil wells) a great many new carbon compounds are spontaneously created during combustion
and more than 250 of these compounds are known to be toxic. The reason for all the toxins
is that when burning the hydrocarbons, which consist only of hydrogen and carbon atoms, it
now combines with oxygen and other elements like nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur to form
countless new compounds. One of the most toxic is carbon monoxide (CO) which we are all
familiar with.
The
purpose of installing catalytic
converters on automobiles is to convert toxins in the
exhaust, which include carbon monoxide and other unburnt
carbon compounds, into the harmless carbon dioxide from which
oil originated (plus other harmless gases that were present in
the air that took part in the combustion).
The most hopeful and benign result of burning any
hydrocarbon is to end up with pure water (H2O) and
carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O2)–all
harmless gasses.
The
reality is that enormous amounts of toxic compounds, however,
escape into the atmosphere and end up in the ocean where they
are broken down by small, simple, and diversified prokaryote
bacteria that form the base of the ocean food chain.
The breakdown of organic compounds into inorganic
materials is called “mineralization”.
Until these toxic chemicals are broken down,
unfortunately, they can cause damage to local ecosystems but
their overall effect on the ocean is to add nutrients, not to
endlessly accumulate as pollutants.
Mineralization of toxins occurs on land as well.
Carbon
forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth and yet we
are being fed one lie after another about its most important
form - CO2:
first, we are lied to about it causing
a global warming catastrophe; second, we are lied to about
the enormous harm to corral reefs due to it causing ocean
acidification; third, we are lied to about
it being a pollutant; and, finally, we are lied to, by
omission, about its connection
to the origin of oil.
(Lying by omission is a serious crime for individuals
but the Supreme
Court has ruled that it is not a crime for Corporate
America. No wonder
that Al Gore always speaks as Chairman of his Generation Investment Management.)
The
abiotic theory of renewable oil is heresy to the peak oil
religion just as so much good science is heresy to global
warming/climate change. In fact, peak oil is often spoken
of in the context of climate change, the conflagration of
two hypothetically “huge” problems.
Back
to top of page >>>
1 April 09
A
Case for Torture - has it a place in a civilised democratic
society?
By
Just Brian
The answer to this question
coming from any New Zealander would be an emphatic NO.
Quite right too! That
sort of behavior smacks of the worst scenario from the days of
Fascist Hitler & Mussolini, with a larger contribution
coming from Stalin’s Russia and present day China and its
associates. Also from the “freed African Countries” there
is a contribution.
In
our legal system we abhor such methods, and yet....are we so
blind as to not see that those out to destroy our democratic
system by horrible terrorist atrocities (so far well away from
“God’s Own) who blatantly bomb schools, public places,
buildings and even underground railways in an attempt to
achieve their aims?
So
how can we deal with the terrorism of the future when, not if,
it reaches our “Benign Environment”?
Have we a panacea, a secret agency able to thwart these
people before they accomplish their acts?
Yes, we have an SIS, (Now successfully prevented from
surveillance on our M.P.’s) with Justice Neazor’s
finding
“That
M.P.’s were elected to serve the public interest and swore
an Oath of Allegiance”
How
then does Judge Neazor react to the N.Z Muslim M.P.’s or
indeed any Muslim who swears allegiance to this country upon
the “Quran” (Koran) which itself demands a hatred of all
non Muslims, with a call to perpetuate violence, murder,
terrorism and to fulfill their sacred duty to wage war...a
violent jihad?
We
are now engaged and have been for a long time in an undeclared
war against Islam, appeasement is not an option, for Islam
means submission. This is NOT a war in the accepted sense but
an asymmetrical war.
One
side, due to conforming to Human Rights and Political Pressure
is playing by the old set of rules.
A sort of Public School Sports Rules, the Geneva
Convention...the rules of War.... the civilised way of
conducting a war!
Accepted
by the Newspapers and the Media in general and for a
population indoctrinated that the majority is always crushing
the minority. With such a prison like Guantanomo Bay a blot on
the face of Western Civilisation.
While
the other side plays with NO RULES at all, no Marquis of
Queensbury on this side; just all out war on everyone who is
in the way. Their
allies safe behind the comforts of Western Democracy play the
game of Multi Culturalism picturing the USA, its Allies and
Israel as the demons of Capitalism......How Karl Marx and
Lenin must be smiling!
So
what about torture, are we in the West so holy as to try to
win an unwinnable war by sticking blindly to the “Rules”?
Ask
yourself this question.
“You
have before you a Terrorist(s), he or she boasts that the bomb
they exploded is just the first. There is another terrorist
bomb attack coming and more unbelievers will die so that the
world will be made free for the eventual Islamization of the
World”.
What
would you do? The bomb will be exploded and people will die,
and you have no idea where this will take place, or when.
The Terrorist(s) before you will never tell,
WHAT
THEN IS YOUR ACTION.
The
purist, the believer in the Geneva Convention, and our
reaction to right and wrong tells us that this man or woman
must never be submitted to torture.
Yet
could you walk away hoping against hope that this second bomb
does not explode?...and if it does can you face the survivors,
the maimed, the wounded and the dead and say :-
“I
followed the rules, nothing else could be done” ?
Whether
we like it or not there are people and organisations who would
not walk away, and guess what, if it was not for them you
would not be reading this.
Back
to top of page >>>
|
