Imposing Aroha: Labour’s Brave New World

Supplementary to: Bolton, Muslim Deaths cynically used to Enforce State Dogma, The European New Zealander,

K R Bolton
3800 Words

Comrade Cindy’s directive was broadcast far and wide: ‘Be kind’, and love one another (aroha). It has all the dialectical meaning of Mao’s declaration of a new dispensation of freedom when he inaugurated the ‘Let the One Hundred Flowers Bloom’ campaign with its subsequent slaughter of dissidents.

The vaunted Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019 ( is a document that is intended to radically and permanently change New Zealand via social engineering, behind the guise of combatting ‘extremism’ and preventing ‘terrorism’. The entire programme is being justified in the name of ‘counter-terrorism’. It is an Enabling Act to impose pervasive social control mechanisms. The use of repetitive slogans about ‘social cohesion’ and its antithesis ‘diversity’, are synthesised in dialectal manner. That such coercive measures are deemed necessary is itself evidence of the impracticability and indeed undesirability of diversity, for if such an edifice can only be maintained by this degree of coercive laws and ideological imposition, then it is clearly flawed. The mentality is precisely that of Robespierre and the Committee on Public Safety, or the Bolshevik charnel houses of the NKVD and OGPU. However today the methods of control are far more subtle, they are the ‘soft dictatorship’ described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, imposed with ‘kindness’.

Of the recommendations, which the Government promptly stated they would implement with the air-headed gusto typical of this regime, the salient points are:

  • Emphasise social and economic benefits of diversity, as primary selling points. Behind the façade of idealism and ‘humanity’ stands the stark reality of economic growth. This will be examined below.
  • The importance of imposing ‘social cohesion, ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ in the face of ‘changing demographics’. When the Right refers to the Great Replacement it is damned as the most dangerous racism and moreover a ‘lie’; when the U.N. refers to ‘replacement migration’ it becomes a humanitarian imperative. Liberalism is based on flawed predicates and hence can only be maintained by increasingly coercive measures. What if individuals are hardwired to prefer to associate with those most like themselves, which might generally imply an ethnic or cultural dimension? The liberal dogmatists prefer to neglect such questions? The scholarly literature on this subject shows that the more the ‘diverse’ a locality the less the social trust. (Peter Dinesen et al, Ethnic Diversity & Social Trust: a Narrative and Meta-analytical review, September 2019,

Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. Taking this as point of departure, this article reviews the existing literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors, and when studied in more local contexts. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly… (Dinesen et al ibid., Abstract).

  • Strong leadership and direction’ by Government to maintain increasing diversity, as an aspect of ‘international and local cosmopolitanism’. Euphemisms for social control in the context of globalisation.
  • Counter-Terrorism. The recommendations are going to be enacted on the pretext of ‘counter-terrorism’. Table 9 lists Islamic terrorists attacks around the world 2002-2018. Yet a premise of the royal commission report is that there had been an ‘inappropriate focus’ on Muslim extremism, 30-40 Muslims in NZ having been under surveillance, according to Andrew Little. Mention is also made of the failure to proceed under the suppression of Terrorism Act against 17 Tuhoe and anarchist psychotics training with automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails, in the Ureweras in 2007. Rather, as the report mentions, the police apologised for causing upset among the Urewera folk. Of course, no such apologies were offered for the police raids and attempted intimidation of dozens of individuals considered dissident in the wake of the Tarrant shootings, despite the police having found nothing relating to ‘Far right’ terrorism. In the Preamble the Human Rights apparatus laments that the suppression of Terrorism Act is insufficient for dealing with the ‘Far Right’, but certainly would not want any law applied to Maori or Far Leftist terrorist training. Indeed, what can be said is that despite lack of a prosecution regarding the Urewera antics, these Tuhoe and anarchist would-be Che Guevera’s remain the only example of an actual terrorist organisation in NZ in recent years. Indeed, the leader, Tame Iti was treated with kid-gloves, with his parole conditions even allowing him to leave NZ, followed by his being interviewed in London and depicted on TV News blowing his nose on the NZ flag to the sniggers of the reporter. However, prior to that some eye-brows had been raised when a group of ‘Maori radicals’ had visited Cuba and Libya. One such ‘activist’, Ripeka Evans, was quoted in 1982 as stating that ‘I feel I have the right to take the blood of white people’, and is said to have attended ‘training camps’ in Cuba in 1978, when she went with a delegation from the NZ Socialist Unity Party. Now Evans is feted as a great reformer. (Ripeka Evans, Sunday Star Times, 31 January 2009, The Establishment answer to Maori and Muslim radicalism is to incorporate it into the system; their answer to that of Rightist dissent is suppression and what might be called ‘re-education’, with nothing accredited to any right of ‘white identity’ (or ‘Give Nothing to Racism’ as the Human Rights Commission euphemistically calls one of their banal propaganda campaigns).
  • Formation of a new intelligence agency to focus on ‘Far Right extremism’. What resources will be expended on maintaining an agency that has literally nothing to do? But, as it is said, ‘the devil finds work for idle hands’, so the onus will be on employees to justify their salaries by creating ‘threats’.
  • Involving ‘civil society’ and the ‘private sector’ in the whole repressive process. What the Human Rights Commission understands by ‘civil society’ is for example its linking and official recommendation of ‘Paparoa’, a lunatic fringe Leftist outfit that specialises in compiling a black list of those deemed to be on the dissident Right, such as the pro-Israel ‘New Conservative Party’. The HRC considers Paparoa’s import of U.S. produced films featuring ex-skinheads to be particularly useful because they ‘shed light on recruitment methods used by organisations that promote extreme violence…’ (Glen Scanlon, H R Communication manager, to Bolton, 18 August 2020). The films supposedly relate the experiences of several stereotypical dysfunctional individuals who joined typical American racist outfits. These creatures have now found the purpose and popularity they were seeking, by jumping on the anti-racist bandwagon where they can get accolades aplenty.
  • Establishing a ‘reporting system’ that can daily process information from those who want to ‘dob-in’ their neighbours, workmates’, an overheard conversation at the local pub, etc. as ‘racist’, including those who might be involved in or admire ‘extremist groups’, or make jokes deemed suspect. All Communist regimes have an efficient informants system.
  • Research grants to study ‘extremism’, with the reports discussed at annual ‘huis’. Here there is a vast lucrative opportunity for academics to make full use of their imaginations, such as shown by the ‘scholarship’ of Dr Paul Spoonley. These would also presumably provide funds to ‘civil society’ bodies such as the psycho-Left ‘Paparoa’ and any number of Leftards claiming to be ‘anti-racist researchers’.
  • Educate the young about their role in a diverse society. This will presumably involve a mind-shaping programme as pervasive in the primary and secondary curricula as that of the Education Department’s programme promoting LGBT+++++…. (K R Bolton, Their Target – Your Children, The European New Zealander,
  • Extend hate speech laws to include religion, and transfer jurisdiction from the H R Commission to the police, under the Crimes Act. Increase penalties.

Danger is from the Loose Cannon

Of added interest is that the report alludes to Tarrant being ‘socially isolated’ and as not being part of any group. He was what the ‘Nazi accelerationists’ (to use a term from the Leftist lexicon) call a ‘lone wolf’, or what we might call a loose cannon; someone not under the discipline of an organisation. If he had been part of a group he would more likely have been identified and stymied in short order, or talked out of such action by the group. What the police witch-hunt against all and sundry found is that there is no ‘Far Right’ terrorist network in New Zealand; hence, a pervasive and intrusive programme is going to be imposed by the State on the basis of what was shown by the State’s own enquiries to be a myth. Drive dissents underground, alienate those who already feel alienated under the Utopia of Diversity and for some individuals the feeling will be one of being cornered. However, the Liberal State does not concede that whites have any grievances, that the legacy is one of ‘white privilege’, and being somehow an integral part of colonial oppression.

The report especially refers to ‘expert’ opinion about the feelings of alienation in young white men, and how they must be re-educated as to their place in an inclusive society. However, the liberal state demands that European New Zealanders accept their role as economic units, and indeed the report states that the emphasis in promoting ‘diversity’, and ‘social cohesion’ is that all are equal in a society based on economic growth. Whites will be coerced into accepting they have no identity’; all other races will be co-opted by being bought off. Yet the system of domination of liberal capitalism remains and is upheld as the means by which all can work and live and shop contentedly. The dissident Right rejects liberal capitalism as exploitative of all races, yet the Left prattles about ‘white supremacy’, and has long since been co-opted by the System.

Another interesting allusion is that in 2018 the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) began investigating ‘right-wing extremism’ in New Zealand. The state knew therefore that there was no ‘Far Right’ threat indigenous to NZ yet proceeded with their attempted intimidation of anyone even vaguely regarded as dissenting from the Left.

Agonising over Hate Speech Definition

The liberal-capitalist state has so many contradictions it becomes a self-devouring serpent. How does one maintain the pretence of freedoms under a Bill of Rights while also implementing coercive measures against dissent? It is the classic Orwellian paradox of Animal Farm. In the Overview the report states:

Unlike hate crime (such as a hate-motivated assault), conduct criminalised by a hate speech offence – in this case, what has been said – is not usually independently illegal. The difference between legitimately criminalised hate speech and a vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture – at least with any precision – in legislative language. As well, the more far reaching a law creating hate speech offences, the greater the potential for inconsistency with the right to freedom of expression.(Report, Hate speech and hate crime related legislation,

However, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are precisely that, to legislate against freedom of opinion:

The criminal justice system plainly does not (and could not) offer complete answers to all social issues, nor to all violations of community norms. A democratic society does not seek to control what people think. So there is no room for “thought-crimes”.As well, the weight that democratic societies rightly give to freedom of expression leaves comparatively little room for criminalising what people say or write, although we consider that there is scope at least for prohibiting some harmful speech.

A decision to create hate speech offences has to balance a number of overlapping and conflicting considerations, including: the promotion of social cohesion; the desirability of limiting speech that encourages hostility that may result in harms, such as discrimination, abuse or actual violence or is psychologically and socially damaging for those targeted; the importance of freedom of expression; and ensuring that the law can be practically enforced.

We recommend that the Government: Repeal section 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and insert a provision in the Crimes Act 1961 for an offence of inciting racial or religious disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communication with protected characteristics that include religious affiliation

We recommend that the Government:
Amend the definition of “objectionable” in section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 to include racial superiority, racial hatred and racial discrimination. Report recommendations, 5.5,

Again it is the Orwellian paradox, premised on Double-think. First, there is ‘no room for thought-crimes’ in a democratic society; secondly, the law must be revised to allow for the prosecution of ‘thought-crimes’ through the courts rather than as at present through the H R Commission tribunals. In any other context the authors would be considered to have fractured personalities, but here they are simply rationalising with the usual liberal double-think that allows contrary options to be held simultaneously. As previously stated, this was made an ideological premise of the Far Left by Herbert Marcuse in his 1963 essay ‘repressive tolerance’; itself as fine example of double-think, which has since given ideological rationalisation to the Far Left slogan ‘no free speech for fascists’. How this is enacted in real life situations is dictated by the de facto banning of Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, Classical Liberals, from speaking in New Zealand by Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, which he rationalised by clichés about their being ‘no place in our society for such thinking’, hence: ‘thought-crimes’. That is to say, the assumption that multiculturalism and business-driven migration are intrinsically good, and that dissent is intrinsically evil; imposing an absolute moral dichotomy that becomes a state religion and anything to the contrary is treated as heresy.

What is ‘hate speech’ other than hatred of any vestige of European identity? When a dissident meagerly proclaims ‘white lives matter and ‘it is okay to be white’ in a more restrained emulation of BLM, the result is an outcry. Within New Zealand, without having to resort to overseas examples, this is already evident. When a small, short-lived group, Western Guard, placed stickers stating ‘white lives matter’, the reaction was an outpouring of airheaded outrage by the then Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy. The assumption must then be that ‘white lives’ do not matter.

The Character of the Modern State

The definition of ‘New Zealand’ is that it functions as a trading outpost. Its nationhood is defined as such, as is its ‘culture’. The selling point of ‘New Zealand Inc.’ as it is overtly called is as an inclusive society that welcomes tourists, or more precisely tourism money, and even more importantly its borders are open to anyone who works hard and pays taxes. That is to say, migration is driven by economics. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade – and it is significant that foreign policy is linked indistinguishably to trade – terms its promotion of overseas trade New Zealand Inc. Among the ‘New Zealand Inc. strategies’ we find:

leading an NZ Inc Heads of Communication group, which works to promote and protect our international reputation…’(New Zealand Inc. Strategies,

Multiculturalism is part of the international sales hype. New Zealand is portrayed as an Pacific island idyll, and the ‘Kiwi’ almost in terms of the ‘Noble Savage’ romanticism of 18th Century intelligentsia; the friendly, innocent idiot:

New Zealand’s awesome landscapes, lush forests, amazing wildlife and pleasant climate make it a haven for many outdoor activities, and a great place to unwind. New Zealand society is diverse, sophisticated, and multicultural, and the honesty, friendliness, and openness of Kiwis will impress you. (More about NZ: Tourism,

Mammon Behind the Rhetoric

In particular, immigration, and the foreign student industry, is business-driven and is regarded as essential for a growth- economy. It is assumed that a growth-economy is the only viable and desirable option. An economic treadmill, once started, cannot be stopped by the present System. Eventually the stage of exhaustion is passed and signs of death begin, as in China, albeit well-hidden. The necessity of multiculturalism in terms of immigration for the sake of economic growth is a premise of Paul Spoonley and others demanding hate speech laws and promoting multiculturalism. One of Spoonley’s primary themes is that the capitalist business model cannot be maintained let alone grown, without a population growth sustained by immigration. In no little measure this demographic crisis mostly but not entirely (e.g. Japan) in the West has been induced by the liberal undermining of the family and motherhood, with massive abortion rates as a consequence.

What the dissident Right had called the Great Replacement, condemned as ‘a racist lie’, by the same liberal System, is called Replacement Migration by the UNO, and that is the subject of the UN Global Compact on Migration, which seeks to address the demographic impact on economic growth via opening up the borders of the West to ‘third world’ labour, whether white collar or menial. So spare us the nauseating moralistic platitude about ‘being kind’ and ‘aroha’, because behind it all is nothing other than GDP statistics. The dance around the Golden Calf, the worship of Mammon, is portrayed as idealism. Spoonley described the money factor unequivocally when considering the impact of COVID restrictions:

Firstly, the lack of availability of migrant labourers will require swift policy decisions to be made so as to not further compromise the economy. Secondly, the strengths in having an existing superdiverse society need to be fully harnessed in order to take advantage of the opportunities that are likely to emerge in the post-Covid world.

Spoonley considers two factors:

The first concerns the reliance on migrant labour – and the demand for goods and services from immigrant communities – that now exists amongst many employers and industries….

…An important policy discussion point over the next few months will be around workforce planning and the role that immigration can and should play in the future, otherwise the sudden and almost complete (at least for much of the remainder of this year) demise of migrant labour will provide another constraint on any possible economic recovery. …

The second issue concerns the existing and future diversity of New Zealand. Even if there is extremely limited migration to New Zealand over the next few years, this is already a superdiverse society with 27 per cent of the total population born overseas and more than 40 per cent in Auckland.

We are anticipating that by the late 2020s, about 20% of the population will be Asian (36 per cent in Auckland) with about the same proportion being Māori and a growing number of Pasifika. …

Whether it concerns an existing workforce or a future one, or whether it involves clients and customers, employers should (if they do not already) understand that ethnic diversity is a major consideration in terms of the current and future economy and labour force of this country. … (Paul Spoonley, Why Ethnic Diversity is Essential in a Post-COVID World, HRD: Human Resources Director, 17 June 2020,

The true Right is Restorative

Behind rhetoric about ‘being kind’ and the idealism of the multicultural society, inclusiveness, diversity, and social cohesion is the reality of sustaining an exploitive economic system. The dissident Right upsets the illusion. The dissident Right states that identity is not predicated on the profit motive, but to the contrary subordinates money to that of a servant. As Thomas Carlyle states in 1843 in Past and Present, a seminal treatise for the Anglophone Right in its critique of capitalism, individuals are not held together by the ‘money nexus’ and the mastery of ‘Mammon’. But the ‘money nexus’ is precisely that which defines the modern nation-state, as reflected in the very notion of ‘New Zealand Inc.’

The liberal state therefore seeks to buy off ethnic communities on the basis of the ‘money nexus’, while the European has long since become redundant as anything other than an economic automaton, aside from those few who dissent and can be literally criminalised out of existence, smeared or ignored. White children can be taught that their legacy is nothing but exploitative colonialism, yet the liberal edifice that is imposing multiculturalism does so in the interests of an exploitive economic system, which only the dissident Right challenges. The irony is that the dissident Right is equated with ‘white supremacy’, yet the liberal-capitalist economic system is founded on dominance, not on any racial basis, but on the basis of an oligarchy that has no loyalty to any race or homeland.

To what degree was industrial Britain, with its empire, for example an expression of ‘white supremacy’ when the conditions of the bulk of its own people were described by Friedrich Engels in his Condition of the Working Class in England ( and by the aforementioned Conservative writer Thomas Carlyle in Past & Present several years previously? But the Left says nothing of this, because they see the system as a dialectical phase in an internationalisation process, referred to by Marx in The Communist Manifesto and elsewhere, that is now called globalisation, and never sought to transcend capitalism but to expropriate it, while the actual Right, as Carlyle indicated, always sought a pre-capitalist, pre-materialistic restoration, where spirit, ethos, and local community replace the ‘money nexus’.

To make the dissident Right synonymous with ‘white supremacy’ makes no sense on any honest level. It is another example of the Orwellian paradox that any notion of a European identity equates with ‘hatred’ while any and every other type of identity, including not only ethnic but over 120 and counting… variations of ‘gender’, are laudable and require state enforcement. The whole notion of ‘identity’ becomes so over-extended and contrived that it become nebulous and eventually must end in the obliteration. Solve et coagula : separate and rejoin: this formula suggests a dialectical method of destruction in the name of creation. To what extent do the globalist business interests really want genuine, organic identities in the long run, once they have had a destructive effect? One might be reminded of the dream of Harry Oppenheimer, the mining and industrial magnate who devoted so much to the destruction of Apartheid, in order to create an integrated labour and consumer market. Solve et coagula: the result was the privatisation of South Africa’s resources, with no discernible benefit to anyone other than international capitalism and its local hirelings: the wonders of a ‘Rainbow nation’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s