Cultural truths from USA via UK all enforced Down Under
No question quite so absorbs conservative and establishment category gatherings in places such as Sydney, Adelaide, Auckland, and Wellington as this one. Why do the newspapers and broadcasting channels all share identical points of view?
The reason for this singularity of community of interest is usually attributed to the self-selection of the people involved in putting out newspapers and broadcasts.
This blends with a corresponding uniformity of background. The provenance of these individuals tends to be the same. They are all from urban and privileged backgrounds.
Another factor underpinning this choral approach to current affairs is that the songs being so ardently sung all originate overseas and also from easily mapped and pinpointed geographical areas.
In Australasia this is hard to swallow because of the pioneering era long cherished conviction that these countries are ruggedly independent when it comes to thought and belief. Indeed that their fresh no nonsense unvarnished individualism is a world removed from the cosseted and elitist salons of places such as London, New York, and Los Angeles.
In common with most myths in these southerly latitudes the truth can be discovered simply by an evaluation of the direct opposite of the contemporary mythology.
Newspaper and broadcast opinions in Australasia actually originate in the West Coast of the United States, are refined in the East Coast and arrive in London. Then after some additional tailoring in the London BBC clearing house these viewpoints are transmitted for rediffusion in Australasia.
Upon arrival none of these moulded beliefs are open for debate. The extended transmission pipeline has hardened them along the way to the point at which they have materialised as no-go zones that are required to be accepted as articles of faith.
The most obvious of these transmitted collective industry stereotypes was and is of course the belief that Donald Trump is the original bad hombre and that anything he caused or causes to happen radiates evil.
In contrast anything emanating from New York’s globalist organisations becomes as treasured as Motherhood was until a few years ago. These include all declarations on climate warming.
Forbidden is any expressed scepticism on the reality of the climate “crisis” and its consecrated rating as an imminent “catastrophe” and its unimpeachable ascendancy over any other crisis and especially the current and actual virus one that these same globalist institutions failed in their duty to protect the world from.
The West Coast -Hollywood-origin subset of no-go zones focuses meanwhile on human characteristics known as identity ones.
In earlier stages this took the form of political correctness a process in which minority classifications began to assume majority influence requiring in coverage exquisitely exaggerated politesse. In Australasia all this is now grouped under the cultural safety banner.
Ideological costume changes amid the media mean that its taboos are crystallised collectively and so become institutionalised very quickly.
China oddly enough in the context of the last two years is one such beneficiary of this institutionalised group-think. There remains for example little enthusiasm in anyone covering any correlation between the severity of virus outbreaks in Melbourne and Milan and the presence of these mercantile centres as their countries’ hubs of China’s Belt & Road Initiative common market scheme.
Then there is the uniformity in the fervency of the take up now of an issue that pre-dated political correctness. Unmentioned in any coverage of Australasian defence via the ANZAC or Five Eyes pact category is the immovable don’t mention of New Zealand’s utter ban on anything nuclear.
The sanctity of this as an engrained cult taboo and one which might just interfere with the successful conduct of any mutual defence arrangements is always sidestepped in a collective media illusion as was let us say the vulnerability of the Maginot Line before World War 2.
The mainstream wraps around itself increasing layers of moral fervour. Much of the interlarded sackcloth and ashes enclosed in this is about a pioneering past now labelled under the shared guilt transfer as a “colonial” past.
In Australasia some believe that this eagerly expressed state of wretchedness and shame is a substitute for the melting away of organised religion, especially that of Roman Catholicism which once held such sway among media types.
Another theory draws on the cane toad (pictured), the rabbit, prickly pear and gorse bush and other introduced species that proliferated in their new antipodean environment.
This viewpoint contends that the West Coast of the United States cultural imperative to dominate any collectively-rated moral high ground, and above all, to be seen to be doing so, found a new and virgin habitat in the South Seas.
We can conclude therefore that the symmetry in this community of interest is organic and exotic. In its long journey from the West Coast of the USA through the globalist filters of New York and then via Commonwealth public broadcasting relay boosters this pasteurised coverage took firm root.
It has exploded like a giant orchid in a region in which there are no natural predators that might put forward any dissenting point of view to the trans-Atlantic gospel.
New Hebrides Dual Systems era recalled as race-based separatism evolves in Aotearoa
Unbeknownst to most of its inhabitants an Oceania nation is transforming itself into the world’s newest condominium a rare form of governance in which sovereignty is shared by two legally defined categories.
In New Zealand’s case the two categories are Maori and non-Maori.
This transition is incremental and the change is imperceptible to all but the political activists driving the split governance scheme.
This imminence of it was reinforced by the New Zealand government serving notice that it intended to nationalise municipal water.
This followed the announcement of a centralising of public health currently run by 20 elected boards centred on district local hospitals.
In both these shakeups there is scheduled to be in both outcomes a substantial if not dominant role for those claiming Maori heritage.
Maori electoral districts known as wards are being shunted through for local government authorities.
State broadcasting channels are ramrodding through the Maori language at every and any opportunity.
In this whole evolving framework the government taps into a deep-seated craving for New Zealand to achieve recognition on the world stage wherever progressive values command the agenda.
This is variously described as “holding our head high,” or more colloquially and more famously “punching above our weight.”
The Labour government is acutely conscious of this yearning to be seen to be leading any social advance. It now sees what amounts to condominium government as its instrument for attaining its international “best in class” status, as it sees it.
It knows it has the power to implement a condominium bipartite or two system governance because its polls still continue to tell it that it has the allegiance of the commanding blocs of the electorate.
These voting blocs include the entire education system, anything to do with the media-arts along with most of the other public institutions
In contrast this leaves its National Party opposition holding only the property and real estate sector and clinging with an increasingly tenuous grip to its traditional agribusiness base.
As a condominium looms for the nation it is salutary to examine the last one in Oceania. This was the New Hebrides before it achieved independence in 1980 and became Vanuatu.
Governance was shared between Britain and France. Everything existed in mirrored pairs. There were for example separate British and French governments, which meant two immigration policies, and two corporation laws.
There are signs that the New Hebrides condominium experience has been studied by the local condominium governance architects. This is because language in practical terms became in the New Hebrides era the most serious impediment to smooth running because anything official at all had to be interpreted and then re-interpreted into French and English.
The condominium scheme, the new one for New Zealand, is well under way. So anticipating the same New Hebrides language operational obstacle government agencies daily increase their double up of Maori and English in announcements as well as in correspondence and documents.
Officials in any capacity understand that their career prospects will be much enhanced should they use every opportunity and at the expense of effective communication to apply Maori and ideally whole phrases or better still entire sentences.
In the old New Hebrides condominium inhabitants were given the choice of which government they wanted to be ruled by. The French one or the English one. This is the evolving pattern in the New Zealand scheme.
Matiu Rata (above) was the Minister of Maori Affairs in the nation’s third Labour government and he was renowned for bluntly yet concisely summarising any state of affairs as he saw it.
On one occasion he was asked who exactly was a Maori?
“You are a Maori if you think you are a Maori,” he declared.
As New Zealand incrementally but so purposefully moves toward condominium governance Matiu Rata’s yardstick like the New Hebrides experience demands earnest evaluation.
So does the taxpayer funded report known as He Puapua which has surfaced and which sets out the scheme for the dual governance.
He puapua means a petal. The ministerial working group that compiled the report translates it instead as “a break” meaning a sudden change.
Pastoral farming abolition call hushed up in producer nation media no-go zones of silence
A scheme by the World Health Organisation for a global conversion to plant-based nutrition at the expense of animal foods is running in parallel with COP26.
The switchover scheme is studiously ignored in pastoral economies by politico-media interests taking advantage of a widespread public belief that the World Health Organisation and United Nations are two separate organisations.
They are both part of the same body. The World Health Organisation was created to coordinate health affairs within the United Nations system.
Anything critical of United Nations is no-go territory for media in the Westminster zone and especially in Australasia and especially in regard to the climate change stance of United Nations which is treated as holy writ.
WHO’s collusive communique just prior to Glasgow stated that “a shift to more nutritious, plant-based diets” will reduce global emissions significantly, ensure more resilient food systems, “and avoid up to 5.1 million diet-related deaths a year by 2050.”
The politico media blind eye missed also the irony and condescension elsewhere in the WHO diet proclamation about the need to stick to its parent the UN in order to “save millions of lives every year due to improvements in air quality, diet, and physical activity, among other benefits.”
An unquestioning support for anything to do with United Nations on Australasian state broadcasting has since mutated to the newspaper chains too.
Pulled into this are some curious and censored sub-routines.
One is the silence over the beneficial role of pasture grasslands in absorbing greenhouse gases.
The UN “system” as it is known colonised and then trademarked climate by creating its own climate of belief that nothing much happened before it chose to intervene in the “crisis.”
Among these pre-UN intervention activities are the farm forestry movement, the National Parks, the hydro dams, the catchment and conservation boards, geothermal, and the now banned natural gas which is the feedstock for the much hyped planet-rescuing blue hydrogen.
Another question that needs to be asked is the one be about the United Nations-WHO failure to anticipate and then contain the pandemic now conveniently relegated to a minority “crisis” status in comparison to their own priority proprietary climate one.
The UN system correctly gauged that a faith vacuum had developed among the urban privileged in the English-speaking realm. It filled it with its own customised belief of redemption through climate.
This literally covers a multitude of sins.
It gives governmental authorities everywhere a useful climate change alibi when housing intrudes on fire-prone forests and when investment in water conservation, drainage, and erosion control has failed to match population growth and usage.