At 11:59 pm on Wednesday 13th May after seven weeks of lockdown, New Zealand collectively breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, perhaps we can get back to normal… Well actually, not quite!
Unfortunately, there are a few things about the “new normal” that go beyond the continued requirement to social distance and cue for the supermarket, which apparently is a reality that is here to stay.
Our first day of freedom also happened to be budget day. A good old fashioned election year lolly scramble paid for by you know who. The government announced a 50 Billion dollar COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. The budget reads like the sort of happy largess one would expect from an economy after several years of gold rush boom time. Ther’s money there for everything! And plenty more where that came from;
- Kate Sheppard’s house… 6 million dollars
- Sustaining Crucial Public Media Platforms, including disability media (captioning and audio descriptions)…25 million dollars
- Official Development Assistance, to support human rights, gender equality and women’s empowerment in Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and East Timor…55.6 Million Dollars
- Rebuilding the Forestry Emissions Trading Scheme…80 Million Dollars
- Early Learning Education Package…291 Million Dollars to fund among other things a 3.5% pay rise for ECE teachers and Kohanga Reo
- Learning Support…79.7 Million Dollars to fund among other things, English teachers for speakers of other languages.
All these and many more are eminently laudable causes to be sure, but you know, there’s a cost to all this. 62.1 billion NZ dollars in total so far. And for a country of only five million souls, one might reasonably scream “show me the money”!
The Reserve Bank of NZ on the 23rd march announced the first round of 30 Billion dollars of Government bond purchases, what some might call money printing. And that is just the beginning, as Adrian Orr told the Epidemic Response Committee on the 16 April, “On the monetary stimulus side all I can say is at most we are at the end of the beginning around what may need to be done and what we can do”. Indeed on the 14th May, he would be conjuring from nothing another 30 billion dollars to purchase more IOU’s from the government. Other measures to keep money moving through the economy included dropping the OCR to 0.25% on the 16th March and removing the LVR for home buyers on the 30th of April.
Higher taxes are inevitable, one of the problems with Quantitative Easing is that whilst it is technically possible to remove money from the system, it seldom happens. So the money you have reduces in value, creating an apparent shortage of cash.
The election is only four months out and you can be sure the government will be banking on their largess with the purse strings being enough to keep the voting plebs happy enough to give them another term at the tiller. For it’s part, National has been pointing out that someone has to pay the ferryman; “It means $80,000 a household that needs to be paid off, it will mean more taxes for people … Either you pay that back with additional taxes, or you set up a legacy for our children,”- Simon Bridges. Stuff.co.nz. And even Treasury sees a deeper economic contraction that at any time in our recorded history. Interest.co.nz
The problem for Jacinda Ardern and the Labour coalition is the ideological blinkers that trap them into believing their future political success is entirely and only dependent on the economy.
Don’t get me wrong, the economy is important, but it’s not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Quality of life has a value of its own. When both mum and dad are working full-time jobs, and make enough money to keep the kids in school and daycare, run two cars and can even afford weekends away and the little trinkets and luxuries that remind them they have “arrived”. These things start to fade a little when they feel the need to move to a different neighborhood for various reasons, “oh Better schools” is a good one, or “the cost of living” or “the climate”. There are cultural costs that are ignored when the focus is economics only. And one of the key agents of cultural change is demographics.
Even if a viable economic life is possible, how is that of value when the life you are working so hard to sustain is devalued at every turn. In discussing these issues it is impossible to ignore the cultural impact of large scale none European immigration. Whether it be for economic reasons or international obligations or Humanitarian obligations. The unspoken obligation that we all assume the government accepts, to maintain the security and safety of the people and the nation, gets lost in the fog of obligations to persons other than our own. As white folks, we like to consider ourselves generous and open and all the other broad-minded buzzwords, but when we are forced to live as foreigners in our own communities, with the creeping sense of loss and tension that comes with it, it is only a natural instinct of survival to seek a community of familiarity.
All across the West, it seems there is a hermetically sealed media and academic blanket laid over the legitimate desires of the people to preserve their way of life. Any pesky desires for self-preservation on the part of the European people are snuffed out with any and all subversive means.
We are in a war, a war by other means but a war none the less. Johnathon Bowden among others pointed out that the post war Marxists have learned their lesson and found that if they lose the hard edge of Stalinist brutality and instead adopt the soft Marxism of cultural infiltration they could influence almost the entirety of the political spectrum. Leaving any healthy expression of cultural identity for Europeans confined to what is now the new “extreme far-right”.
The West through deliberately contrived ignorance remains completely unaware and defenseless against these predations. In four months time, we will have an election in New Zealand, and we have now started seeing the appearance of unusually flattering pictures of our dear leader Jacinda Ardern in the media and magazine covers. The generation of a personality cult is something one would usually associate with North Korea or Stalinist Russia, not New Zealand. The playbook is simple in concept but a long time in the execution, invert the moral compass of the entire culture then use the newly contrived moral framework to get the people to vote against their own self-interests.
On Tuesday the 13th May, the Covid-19 Public Health Responce Bill was introduced to the house under urgency and became Law the next day. The government had had five weeks to introduce appropriate legislation but left it to the last minute to push through legislation it knew it would have no chance of passing under normal procedures. The NZ Law society was given a draft copy for consultation on Monday night and was expected to have all comments and review back to the government by 10 am the next morning. They were not impressed; “ The bill… contains profound restrictions on New Zealander’s rights… This is a very significant piece of legislation…it is unacceptable in a democratic system to rush through legislation of this magnitude with no real consultation.” These are pretty serious words from a professional society not given to emotional outbursts or exaggeration.
The assurance given by Attorney-General David Parker that the new powers are narrower than the emergency powers we have been living under for the past seven weeks is also not very reassuring, especially when you realize you have been living under the Search And Surveillance Act since 2012. It turns out we have been living with a false sense of liberty for years, and now Don Corleone wanders in to make us an offer we can’t refuse! The new law is less restrictive than the draconian laws required for Level 4 lockdown but it is still simply a question of degree rather than intent.
Behind the airbrushed image, is a very calculating political brain. From the strained expressions of sadness and sympathy to the endearing and disarming smiles. I want to know whats going on behind those eyes and what drives her decision making and policy positions. Jacinda Ardern named herself as minister for National Security and Intelligence, and minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. That’s an interesting combination, and I wonder if there is another reason why someone with her background would choose Arts Culture and Heritage.
In 2008 after being elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, Jacinda Ardern Returned to New Zealand to campaign full time as a Labour list MP. Between 2008 and 2014 she failed to get elected three times but each time entered parliament on the List. Eventually, in 2017 she finally won a “landslide victory” in Helen Clark’s old seat of Mount Albert, however, even in this far-left Labour seat her mandate was unconvincing. With a turnout of only 30% of registered voters, her “landslide” victory of 76% was against the Green party and an array of independents. No other major party stood a candidate. So the only time Jacinda has ever been elected to office in New Zealand she took a safe seat unopposed on a very low turnout, after failing three times before. The MMP electoral system has distinct advantages for parties that want to get their selected candidate in, regardless of the will of the voters. MMP was supposed to deliver greater representation, is that what this is?
For years New Zealand politics has been wall to wall liberals. And with the Christchurch Mosque shootings and the collapse of any even vaguely conservative voice in NZ politics, the liberal left has been completely unopposed, allowing the more extreme elements of Labour ideology to come to the fore and drive the political agenda in NZ. One might expect National and Labour to espouse different ideologies, but both sides of the house are in lockstep on issues of real cultural significance, Labour proposed and both Labour and National voted for and passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 and the Abortion Legislation Act 2020.
A look at iusy.org can help us understand some if the ideology driving our Jacinda. It will also explain the media’s fawning adoration and softball questioning of her handling of the Covid-19 crisis.
The International Union of Socialist Youth, is a huge organization with advisor status at the UN with over 100 member nations. Its current iteration was founded in 1907 as the Youth wing of the Second International, it had pretty solid communist credentials; Lenin joined in 1905 and Karl Marx was heavily involved in developing the program and constitution of the First International in 1864. The Second International was abandoned in WW1 and was succeeded by the Third International, otherwise known as the Comintern in 1919.
The arguments and splits in the wider socialist movements are based on degree, not direction, so while the IUSY Global Manifesto might be stripped of the inherent extremism of the Communist Manifesto it is still laced with the same totalitarianism that drives what Marx called critical-utopian socialism or Communism. The IUSY Manifesto smacks of a naive and gullible rose-tinted view of the world and childish assumptions about human behavior. The insistence that we should all have equal opportunity is made ridiculous by also insisting that this “…also refers to the equality of outcome”.
It is a world view that explicitly denies the naturally occurring diversity between ethnic groups whilst fallaciously pretending to promote diversity by insisting that members of different groups live, work and cohabit together. Ultimately diluting down all diversity into one homogenous human type. The language of tolerance and inclusion is used to bribe people with moral coercion to accept propositions that they would never accept if they were stated honestly.
Tolerance itself is never examined; it is just insisted upon. But tolerance is a putting up with, the forbearance of a condition one would rather, – if one were free to choose – do without. Tolerance somehow becomes a moral virtue to itself. Tolerance becomes its own justification. Such that even the online dictionary defines tolerance as “freedom from bigotry”. So to not tolerate a precipitous decline in your conditions of life is “Bigotry” according to this new definition. So to attempt to improve your own in-group conditions by removing conditions imposed upon you without your consent is also …”Bigotry”. It should be obvious that a people afflicted with this belief system will be unhappy, confused, and self-flagellating to the point of complete dissolution.
“No single right is more important than others.”
“The fundamental values of IUSY are those of socialism and social democracy: freedom, equality, and solidarity”
“We need collective efforts and collective solutions.”
In this utopian view of the world no one can be allowed to “run the risk of finding themselves socially disadvantaged because of their choices”. In other words everyone must be free to do whatever they want whilst incurring no consequences whatsoever for their own bad decisions. The injustice of expecting one group to pay for the poor decisions of another is not considered.
Freedom of speech is strongly advocated as long as you don’t disagree with their stupid childish dreams. They espouse nice-sounding words without thinking about how these amorphous humanitarian aims are ever going to be achieved;
the “socialization of resources so that people can live a decent life. “
“Human rights are indivisible and universal. “
“They apply equally to all people everywhere in the world “
“Neither oppression nor violence towards any human being can be excused. “
“No single right is more important than others. – they are indivisible “
The ideological straightjacket of impossible equality – equality of opportunity AND equality of outcome – traps them into the only possible explanation for the inequality they see all around us. In the utopian-socialist frame of reference inequality could not occur naturally, so it MUST be due to oppression, criminality, and violence. And they are here to answer that assumed violence with even more violence. They are here to correct the assumed errors in the natural world with violence of their own. But it is righteous violence, good violence because it is in pursuit of their ideological aims which are self evidently great…. because … well because they just ARE, you bigot!
Under the heading of the “extreme right-wing”. ” We strongly oppose the concept of multiple races and of predetermined incoherence between cultures. There are no homogenic cultures. Dividing lines between groups of the society are not cultural or ethnic ones, but social and economic ones. The ideology of extreme right-wing movements is based on racism, anti-semitism, sexism and homophobia.” The extreme right-wing is evidently any person or group that recognizes there is a natural order in the world that is counter propositional to their deranged imaginings. The ideas of the liberal left would be cute and endearing if they were not in power, if they were not intent, by any means necessary – to quote Winston Churchill – “to reconstitute the world on the basis of arrested development”.
“IUSY will work together to create an inclusive, equal and multicultural society.“
This then is the ideological background of our airbrushed fluffy duck Jacinda. Quoting Wikipedia on Jacinda Ardern; “Ardern believes the retention or abolition of Māori electorates should be decided by Māori, stating, “[Māori] have not raised the need for those seats to go, so why would we ask the question?” She supports compulsory teaching of the Māori language in schools.”
Obviously the Maori Iwi or activists are never ever going to seek to remove their own electorates are they? It is a statement that is wrong-headed on so many levels. Who does she think the Maoris are? Why does she think the Maori electorates exist in the first place? Who is the “We” she is referring to? What government does she represent? If any? And most presciently, What defines a Nation? Hers are the sort of face-palm questions and statements that come out of the mouths of people so invested in this extreme liberal dogma, that they no longer listen to what they are saying. Where does one even begin to respond? In my experience, there is mostly no point is trying. The liberal mind is based on a world view that is the inverse of the conservative right-wing view, and nothing we say will ever make sense to them.
Reality of life on earth
This is the greatest election year spend up in NZ political history, today we hear that the government is considering extra days off so kiwis can have time to go out and spend all the lovely lolly the bank’s just printed. Great!
No one can realistically claim that the measures Jacinda Ardern has implemented since 25th March to combat the Coronavirus Pandemic have not saved lives. But the devil is in the details, one can say that there are people alive today that would not be alive if no measures at all had been taken.
- BUT, no-one is suggesting we take no measures at AT ALL. Far less economically damaging measures could have been taken without wrecking the economy, whilst still protecting the vulnerable..
- And being alive TODAY does not mean those people are not still going to be vulnerable when (and if) we return to normal. Influenza kills on average 700 New Zealanders a year. It will do so next year just like it did last year, except next year there will be a bumper crop of vulnerable people who were protected by isolation measures taken this year. Add to that the possibility that C19 could return and you have the makings of a year from hell in 2021.
A year from Hell is relative of course, in 1985 we had over 1500 flu deaths, nothing was shut down.
There is an extent to which we need to harden up, life is tough, dangerous, and difficult and hence more precious for the fact. Reasonable precautions against any form of attack are common sense. But it seems as time goes by that common sense seems to be more and more a misnomer. The 2020 Coronavirus pandemic will be notable for it’s outrageous politicization and government overreach. In eastern Europe the numbers are under-reported to justify the inaction of the government while in the US and other western countries the numbers are inflated to justify the excessive actions of the government. There is inconsistency in who is tested, how they are tested, and how the numbers are reported. Accurate comparisons in this environment are unreliable to say the least.
Finally, the people of New Zealand have happily accepted the suspension of their liberties, with an almost childlike acceptance and trusting naivety we smile innocently as Sister Cindy ever so gently places around our necks a noose to hang us with. It is entirely possible that the tsunami of new money will keep her and the government afloat through the election in September, but by this time next year I suspect the smiles will be slipping as reality sets in.
Governments in the west have noted how easy it has been to get the people to accept the new normal. The fear-mongering has worked better that they ever expected as busy body do-gooders relish the thought of dobbing in their neighbors and people everywhere compete to outdo each other in the virtue signaling stakes. Stand four meters instead of two behind the next person in the cue, wear a mask and safety glasses. In the UK the government’s fear was that they would not be able to get people to obey the rules, now the problem is that the people are so terrified they will hardly leave their homes.
New Zealanders, and people in most of the western world, admittedly from which most of the reporting I have seen has come- have demonstrated an amazing willingness to comply and to willingly police each other. This will be an interesting lesson for those who wonder about the extent of state power. I have experienced a similar feeling to NZ in lockdown once before. In 1981 on my first OE from New Zealand, my old mate and me took the train to Berlin, in those days buried deep inside the communist East German GDR. We were able to make a day trip to East Berlin, using the old underground train system that was built before the wall went up in 1961. The deserted streets held a palpable sense of oppression that intensified the closer we got to the wall – from the eastern side. The citizens that passed us on the street would avoid eye contact and hurriedly rush by so as to avoid the appearance of familiarity. Their fear was not of us, two young kiwi blokes wandering around east Berlin would have made an interesting distraction. I suspect the reluctance came from the fear of their own. The STASI informant was everywhere, your neighbor, your workmate, the shopkeeper. It would be very easy for an innocent citizen to make a simple mistake, to look me in the eye or step too close and risk actual contact, and then later that night to experience the spine chilling horror of the two o’clock knock.
But of course, people will say I’m just paranoid, obviously, it’s plainly ridiculous to suggest that THAT or anything like it could ever happen again here or anywhere else in the world! Ridiculous.
Jacinda has written a cheque on the account of future New Zealanders, and the fact is that we, and they, will be paying for this sort of economic and cultural vandalism for years to come. The Reality Cheque that titles this piece refers to the fact that over the coming months and years the effects and costs of what this government has done are going to become apparent, and the coming election will be one of the most significant and defining moments in our history.