Te Aute spirit of excellence through individualism swamped in Reverse Discrimination policies
A political emphasis on retribalizing now focuses on New Zealand’s gangs in a country with more enrolled gang members than members of its military.
The nation’s gangs are accorded immense social license and are handled with velvet gloves by officialdom. Yet it wasn’t always like that. The problem was originally foreseen as long ago as 1854.
Te Aute College (pictured in early days) opened that year with the express purpose of ensuring that there would always be in existence a Maori professional class comprised of medical doctors, lawyers, and clergy.
In 1883 a government native schools inspector confirmed in their report that Te Aute was meeting this objective and noted its accomplishments in mathematics and science specifically.
Among the first to comprehend how seriously off-course this strategy had drifted away from this was the head of the Maori Council, the late Sir Graham Latimer, a farmer. In the 1970s he sought to re-capture this Te Aute approach which in today’s terms would be described as one of excellence by example.
He instituted now a scheme in which accomplishment was showcased in every walk of life, and notably in the enterprise sector. Today, this would be known as putting forward avatars, winners.
This strenuous scheme was now copied by the government which launched its own programme and which had the effect of accelerating the exact drift that Sir Graham Latimer sought to stem. This was to stop the government becoming the catch-all job provider.
Sir Graham understood as did the founders of Te Aute College that the future of his people standing tall in relation to Europeans was to ensure a strong representation in the great professions, and as the 1970s dawned in free enterprise business leadership too.
Sir Graham we can see now was the last authority figure with the clout, the mana, to seek to adjust the Maori way of life to the European one.
After this, there would be dominating an academic-departmental move to do the opposite.
It was to adjust the European modus operandi to appease the separatists.
The emergence of the gang system, predominantly Maori, but not entirely, is the ever-present testimony to the failure of good intentions. Official measures now fed the flames of tribalism.
Some measures were accidental such as the decision to replace the nation’s highway patrol motor bikes with models made in Japan which gave the gangs easy access to their preferred hardware. This was in the form of the now discarded British Norton 650s which flooding the market overnight transitioned from being instruments of law enforcement to symbols of law flouting.
Politically the gangs enjoy a constant resonance covered by the much enunciated doctrines of inclusion, diversity, and of course multiculturalism.
In their more threatening anti-social manifestations gangs draw forth from authority figures vows to draft laws designed to put them out of business. The laws have long existed. But the gangs by experience believe themselves exempt.
A seemingly matter-of-fact series of recent edicts by the Labour government to placate the gangs has had the surprising effect of drawing instead of anticipated if muted approval quite the opposite reaction.
These followed the revelation that unworldly if well-intentioned officialdom in the race relations industry were in the habit of depositing symbolic cash gifts when they attended in the course of their duties the various gang convocations.
First off the launching ramp was a scheme to give enterprises demonstrating Maori involvement preferential access to government contracts.
Now came the announcement of direct government payments to gangs running their own anti drug addiction and health collectives.
Complexions often obliterated by tattoos, clad in emblazoned villainous regalia and astride their unsilenced heavy capacity bikes the blokes-only gangs know they project a volatile mix of menace, unpredictability, and instability.
During the 1950s there developed a mood that time would diminish any tribal hostility and in practical terms would be accomplished by inter-marriage, a concept much illustrated at the time by two merging circles, demonstrating the convergence of the bloodlines.
What also happened was that far from accomplishing “assimilation” the word used in this optimistic era to describe this process, more and more routinely identified as themselves as Maori, and thus came under government head start policies designed for the indigenous.
Sir Graham Latimer and his lieutenant of that era Maori Council secretary Kereana Anihana also foresaw the problem so evident today of a media cushioning with a coating of romanticism of the reality of the gangs.
A visitor to the Maori Council secretary’s office in the 1970s was surprised to find Mr Anihana with his head in his hands.
“I can’t bear to see the television cameras doing so much damage to my people,” he explained to his visitor.
Royal Embodiment of Opposing Cults is a Dilemma for Commonwealth Commentariat
In the person of Prince Charles resides for activists the opposing poles of their group ideology. He towers over the climate movement. He is the beacon of inherited white privilege. Prince Charles actively took up the umbrella cause of climate long before most progressives realised that it was even a cause in the first place.
This conflict becomes visually evident in public television. Here the words “climate change” are rendered with a look of pious pleading. A few segments later Prince Charles’ name pops up and is accompanied by a look of “does he matter anymore?”
The activist commentariat has a split focus between reverence for the climate cult and a cultivated disdain for the individual who has done most to cause it to happen, Prince Charles.
There is the belief that Charles does not wish to be king. Wrong. He has always been utterly straightforward in letting it be known that he expects to shoulder the Crown, and wants to do so.
Sheltering collectively under the all-embracing climate cult the anti white privilege modernists are painfully coming to terms with the fact that their standard-bearer is the heir apparent and who dived more completely into their climate movement than most of them still dare to do.
Nobody personifies this contradiction more than former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.
He built his power base on republicanism, condemned the monarchy. Then he sought to cement himself into office through climatism. He now seeks to maintain both ideologies concurrently.
One ideology sustains climate as the umbrella cause of our times. The other, the twinned monarchy white privilege consciousness movement, seeks to cancel Prince Charles who more than any other living person has by example led the climate crusade.
The contradiction is that the man who will be king, the heir apparent Prince Charles,(pictured above with Davos associate) embodies Climate.
Climate is the overarching doctrine of the contemporary modernity movement which simultaneously seeks to eliminate Charles and everything he stands for which means….wait for it….Climatism.
Climate is the underpinning of the New Zealand political doctrine, even surpassing the diversity one.
In the event anti monarchism cum anti white privilege clashes with the diversity push symbolised by the constantly iterated emphasis on Maori rights.
Maori rights are enshrined by the Treaty of Waitangi, an historic agreement between Maori chiefs and the British Crown. No Crown. No Treaty.
The ideological production process line for this jarring contradiction is an extended geographical one.
The progressive ideology is itself esoteric and originates in the West and East coastal enclaves of the United States and then migrates across the Atlantic.
In its various transmitted belief forms it makes landfall at the Guardian. Here the raw content is re-packaged into softer quizzical ideological versions crafted for Commonwealth consumption.
The BBC picks it up and in doing so gives it the imprimatur of the received wisdom, the ideological equivalent of the Stamp of Good Housekeeping.
It now gets swiftly relayed to other Commonwealth government broadcasters in Australia and also New Zealand where presenters for example are encouraged to give the nation their own favoured replacement name which is Aotearoa.
Back now to Prince Charles, the great Re-setter in Chief and who discovered climate long before it became an emergency or even a crisis.
This princely ecologist was a victim of a real emergency-crisis and one that could have led to his own extinction. He became infected with Covid-19.
White privilege was not enough to protect the Prince. Now himself a bona fide victim in a victim culture did the Prince of Wales whine or even mention this ill-fortune?
He did not, simply using his plight as a springboard for advocating a natural alternative approach to diseases. Yoga he proclaimed was an ideal recovery path for Covid victims.
The cultural elites which now guide public broadcasting do so through propagating the belief that they were there first as an ecological conscience. Actually Charles was, pumping out simultaneously the heritage message along with the natural cures one too.
Redeemers such as Malcolm Turnbull and his cohorts of co-believers to whom climate means colonising the popular conscience are now themselves Guardians of a covert question.
It is this. Does Prince Charles the pioneer climatist cancel out the other Prince Charles, the one of inherited white privilege?
In the bracketed yet seemingly irreconcilable twin cultures of climate and white privilege HRH is both foe and friend to the progressives and thus for them cancels himself out.
Vanity Fair, The Spectator, L’Express cover New Zealand pandemic initiative shunned by local politico-media class.
A scientific collective with roots in New Zealand and which anticipated the official whitewashing of the origins of the Covid-19 virus is being deliberately ignored by the politico-media establishment here.
The purpose of this scientific collaboration is described by one of its participants Paris-based geneticist Virginie Courtier as being straightforward. “There are unanswered questions,” she says “and a few human beings know the answer.”
Point man for the world-wide multidisciplinary movement is Auckland-based Gilles Demaneuf (pictured). He is co-founder of DRASTIC. The group came into existence when it became clear that existing authorities charged with identifying the origins of the virus were inadequate to do so because of undisclosed conflicts of interest.
This became evident to the group after the now widely recognised attempt by The Lancet medical journal to close down any debate centred on the possibility of a laboratory leak for the virus.
“Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone,” was Mr Demaneuf’s reaction to The Lancet, according to Vanity Fair.
It was now that there came into existence Decentralised Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid -19. DRASTIC for short and which now began cataloguing all the relevant research laboratories in China.
As they posted their findings they were joined snowball-like by other scientists with the common purpose of investigating any connection between the pandemic virus and research laboratories in China.
The group now dug for example into why a vaccine was being developed for Covid 19 before there was in fact a Covid-19 virus.
Then there came the discovery that a central research database was rendered inactive just weeks before the world at large was confronted by Covid -19.
DRASTIC began charting the three dimensional structure of the Chinese research laboratories identifying for example plumbing reticulation. It evaluates building materials orders.
Similarly the group seeks to identify all laboratory exception report incidents such as accidents, hospitalisations, and equipment malfunctions. Also telecommunications logs. Who was calling who, and when?
Another conundrum. Why was so much of the Chinese exported personal protection equipment found to be so shoddy?
Normally an international scientific collective such as DRASTIC would have been the subject of considerable local media interest. Pickup would usually be assured because the scientific collective has also been widely covered in France and Australia among other countries
In The Spectator Mr Demaneuf is recorded as claiming that “Unless we fully understand what happened in Wuhan, another virus could bring the word to a halt….and the next one may be more virulent and much more deadly.”
DRASTIC has been substantially covered by Vanity Fair. The United States magazine observed “If the lab-leak explanation proves accurate, history may credit Demaneuf and his fellow doubters for breaking the dam…..
“They are now knee-deep in examining the Wuhan Institute of Virology construction orders, sewage output, and cell phone traffic.”
Concluded Vanity Fair of Mr Demaneuf and a DRASTIC colleague: “Now, at least, there appears to be the prospect of a level inquiry—the kind Gilles Demaneuf and Jamie Metzl had wanted from the start…..”
Occam’s Razor tells us that the obvious explanation is the probable one. This is that the media has always had a problem with scientific topics and their dissection.
Another reason is that Covid is not merely a health or “wellness” threat. It is also a distraction from the in-place politico media priority focus which remains fixed on climate warming as the unifying progressive preoccupation.
In the meantime and in the words of Vanity Fair’s extended DRASTIC coverage “Since December 1, 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 has infected more than 170 million people around the world and killed more than 3.5 million. To this day, we don’t know how or why this novel coronavirus suddenly appeared in the human population.”
Gilles Demaneuf views his task according to a foreign language medical publication as surmounting the “Chinese Wall” of vested interests that encircles the origin of the virus.
What made the Labour coalition government at the very last moment suddenly veer away at the last exit junction?
Negotiations for New Zealand to sign up with China’s Belt & Road Initiative continued until the evidence became overwhelming that China was the source of the Covid-19 virus.
The Labour-led coalition held off a final commitment to Belt and Road and in doing so the nation was saved from the scale of outbreaks that afflicted the main gateways of Italy and the State of Victoria which had already enrolled in the Belt & Road Initiative
China pushed hard for New Zealand to embark on its new era commercial super highway. But government members and officials kept talking instead of taking decisions.
This was in contrast to the Belt & Road earlier adopters such as Italy and the state of Victoria whose main commercial gateways Milan and Melbourne were swamped with the virus due to personnel shuttling back and forth paving the way for the trade strategy.
Who or what against the prevailing political sentiment of the time erected the barrier against taking the Belt and Road Initiative?
The last moment decision to swerve away from taking Belt and Road saved New Zealand from following Italy and Australia which both drove full throttle onto the China trade freeway and as a consequence became prone to the worst effects of the plague.
The Australia participation was in the state of Victoria and centred on Melbourne which became severely contaminated by Covid 19 and which still remains vulnerable to outbreaks.
The Italian terminus of Belt and Road corridor was centred on Milan which became an early victim in Europe of the virus.
It was only much later into the pandemic that the Federal Government eventually perceiving the actual threat stepped in and cancelled Victoria’s state-grade Belt and Road deal with China
Timing is important here. The Victoria state Belt and Road started in October 2018. The Italian Belt and Road in March 2019.
Who was responsible in New Zealand for protracting the deal? Did an alert member of the New Zealand Embassy in Beijing warn that this was not the time to inaugurate a trade agreement that involved substantial people movements?
Did a health attaché perhaps convey the warning that conventional shared and trusted international channels were inadequate to report the outbreak, let alone its severity?
The New Zealand Belt and Road map formula at the time was to participate in the deal by offering to China on top of the usual bill of fare carefully defined sectors of agribusiness expertise.
Discussions on what to put in the New Zealand Belt & Road shop window were only suspended when the extent of the Covid 19 contagion became evident.
This pause in enrolment proceedings meant that Auckland never became the portal for the plague as did Melbourne the focus of the state of Victoria activity and Milan of Italy’s.
The known facts are that China was keen for New Zealand to enrol in Belt & Road, very keen as the nation would have become an important reference site for the rest of the South Pacific to take its lead from.
What made the Labour coalition government at the very last moment suddenly sheer away on the last exit junction before it actually hit the China Belt and Road?
Winston Peters of the Labour-Green-New Zealand First governing coalition cabinet in which he became deputy prime minister now adds to the mystery.
He is the most obvious candidate for recognising the full slate of seen and unseen perils attendant upon Belt and Road. His constant misgivings about China and his championing of Taiwan single him out as a candidate for pulling on a handbrake.
One other thing is known. It is that this entire topic, a close run thing by any standard, has become taboo and shrouded in self-censorship in the very places that it should be discussed.
Why did Mr Peters during the Covid Election toward the end of 2020 fail to stress any role he had in any stalling on Belt & Road, and thus in preventing the contagion that overran Melbourne and Milan?
Did he in fact do so but nobody wanted to acknowledge what he was saying?
China in just recent weeks has culturally appropriated the most potent page in the political playbook, the victim one, and it is calculated most of all to appeal to the Labour government.
There is a timetable and questions must now be asked about it. The CCP is determined that for New Zealand Belt and Road will not encounter an Oceania cul-de-sac, a dead end.
Broadcaster’s new Line of Duty will put British values over New York ideology
The British Broadcasting Corporations’ role in implementing and then covering up its methods in obtaining its television interview with Princess Diana now severely damages its effectiveness in its role as the distribution hub for United Nations doctrines.
The BBC ability to diffuse the United Nations agenda and so without encountering contradiction until now has been based on the broadcaster’s reputation as the unchallenged standard bearer for truth and righteousness.
In effect the BBC has long acted as the curator and cheerleader for information favourable to United Nations values and notably for its current Agenda 30 scheme.
Its success as super aggregator for news favourable to the United Nations strategies rested on the BBC’s carefully-nurtured image as a purveyor of the received wisdom and this allowed it to shape output content in other state-controlled broadcasters notably in Australasia.
The methods revealed to obtain in the first place the interview with Princess Diana are more commonly associated with the techniques employed for example by elements of the Murdoch media.
Ever since it discovered satire under its defining director general Hugh Carleton Greene the BBC has known that as long as it projected modernity it would remain invulnerable to any serious politically-provoked shakeup.
Independent television operators might be quicker off the mark, even more entertaining, but in what must now be justifiably recognised as a bureaucratic tour de force the BBC retained its lynchpin role in being seen to hold the Westminster realm together.
It was this position that allowed any concerted attacks on it to slide away into irrelevance. The BBC’s role for example in showcasing national hysteria on the death of Princess Diana was dismissed even though questions were even then arising about the circumstances of the BBC interview only two years before.
This interview had protected the BBC’s vulnerable flank, the one that held that it was too slow, too ponderous, dithered. If it was an overweight bureaucracy, then it had with the interview proved that it was one that could run rings around the quickest and meanest members of its competition. Murdoch had been out-Murdoched, and classily so.
Every quarter century as if on some regal timetable the royal family is prone to an internal convulsion. This time around it was detonated by Harry.
Harry’s intervention induced a fresh and greatly compounded reassessment of his mother Princess Diana. On the Clinton scale Diana was Bill to the rest of the royal family’s Hillary. Diana’s common touch, charisma, and then the abrupt absence of it left a vacuum, a curiosity, a yearning, that no television drama could compensate for.
The BBC’s terrible mistake was now visible for all to see. It was a bureaucratic one. Time the BBC thought was on its side. Time was working against it. Pressure was building up instead of diminishing. Aggrieved peripheral contributors among its own employees of the time of the contrived interview should have been disarmed at that time. They obviously weren’t. Now they began singing. Those directly involved were clung to with sinecures or rather amazingly given still higher profiles and even ennoblement. Foolishly the BBC had made its past its present.
Hitherto often considered one of the great pillars of the Westminster realm, along with the monarchy, parliament and the Church of England, the corporation’s skill lay in the ability of its high command always to keep it above any battle. If anyone doubts their footwork then let them consider how the BBC flourished in modern times while that other pillar, the Church of England, drifted into irrelevance.
While fashionable society questioned the durability of the monarchy. Nobody in any position of influence at all dared to do the same thing with the BBC. Would-be critics knew that the consequences would at one and the same time be damaging and untraceable.
A generalised dissatisfaction within Britain’s governing Conservative party stemmed from the BBC’s constantly favouring the United Nations globalism this time in the BBC’s undisguised enthusiasm for Britain remaining in the EU. This meshed with the anger among households as to why they had to pay the BBC’s substantial and rigorously enforced licence fee on their television sets whether they actually used these same sets to watch the BBC or not.
The BBC believed that it was insulated from encroaching pressures such as the Diana one by its rigorous hewing to the United Nations line on anything and everything. The entire package was seen as a corporate bomb shelter made of reinforced virtue. Voguish themes ruled the airwaves such as diversity, equity, sustainability, inclusion, empowerment along with other UN compound description “journeys” such as peace-building and state-building, and net zero.
The forthcoming manoeuvring by the BBC will be based on retreat and advance and always seeking to recover more ground than it lost.
At first the retreat-and-recovery strategy will feature public dodging, ducking and weaving and recurring use of quasi penitent words such as governance, transparency, accountability. These will be coupled with inquiries, committees, probes, hearings, reviews and working groups providing insights of great clarity into the blindingly obvious. Until attentions everywhere start to wander.
Then will follow the real BBC campaign, the actual strategy, the ground recovery one, in which the BBC will deploy its influencers, its praetorian guard, who from their metropolitan strongholds will in this second phase campaign, the silent one, go out to bat for it with targeted lobbying.
During these early campaigns the BBC will seek to supress its more ardent activism on behalf of globalist modernity, or at least disguise partisanship. The corporation will now discretely open a fresh front, an insidious one. It will champion British values and British traditions over United States-inspired ideologies. At least until the flap does down. At which point normal service will resume.
Middle East Banker advises focus on agriculture & leaving energy to oil nations
Meguerditch Bouldokian is the Middle East’s leading eye on New Zealand. He has some surprising answers to our five questions:-
There is now this intense wariness, suspicion about China. Australia has torn up for example its Belt and Road trade deal with China. How much of this do you attribute to Covid?
Australia is facing many problems at present due to COVID-19, and due also to the value of its exports to China which doubled from AU$ 75 billion to AU$ 150 billion in the past 5 years (2015-2020).
There is Australia’s position on a number of strategic issues including insisting that the World Health Organisation conduct a proper inquiry into the origins of COVID- 19. Then you have its criticism of China’s actions in Hong Kong. These have clouded its relationship with China and triggered a growing list of export restrictions in return. China asserts that Australia is dumping and generally subsidizing many of its exports. So there are these tariffs on wine, barley and all the other disputes in trade relations including non-tariff obstacles such as China insisting ironically on hygiene, pest and health certificates.
We now find Australia concerned too about its future relationship with the World Trade Organisation in resolving trade disputes with neighbours, although its record with WTO has been more wins than losses.
It has problems too incidentally with New Zealand in using biosafety measures to keep NZ apples out of their market. Compliance with the rules of WTO must not be undermined if it has to benefit from globalization and not accumulating souring relationships with WTO partners.
New Zealand has banned oil exploration and will turn off its natural gas to comply with United Nations targets. This must be good news for the Middle East?
Consider this. If this sector is allowed to grow unrestrained then it will take investment away from other areas of your economy. I refer to the other industries and agriculture, which make 58% - 65% of the GDP and 70% of exports earnings. NZ growth rate is 2.8% compared to Canada 1.9% and Australia 2.2%. New Zealand is routinely cited to be the fifth richest country in the world.
Oil and gas explorer countries have not developed their other economic sectors like yours. I do not say these other countries have a poorly developed and non-diversified economic sector. But NZ has better alternatives from other export revenues beyond oil and gas in the short run.
Regarding the issue of banning New Zealand’s oil exploration and turning off natural gas to comply with UN targets this might be good news for not only for the Middle Eastern Gulf states, but also Russia, Azerbaijan and other natural gas producers worldwide.
In my opinion, this is a good measure for the benefit of New Zealand in the medium and long run because the unforeseen benefit is the way in which investment which might otherwise have gone into trying to compete with these oil and gas producers will now be diverted into premium sectors in which New Zealand is much more competitive.
Still, we are left with the fact that countries such as New Zealand and Australia have their exports dangerously weighted on China. Is there any alternative?
Both countries must initiate and search for new alternatives, while keeping a neutral balance between its Eastern
neighbours and Western alliances. What is short in China and Russia is Western style education in economics finance, banking and social sciences. Exports to China from NZ, was USD 17 billion in 2020 while Australia came second, Japan third, USA fourth, and the Republic of Korea fifth.
It is much the same with Australia. Interrelationships and interconnections can improve the future general relationships of NZ and Australia with China in the long run. China is a neighbour after all. The issue of alternatives is a long term one which needs a thorough study of the economic and financial sectors among the three countries in question. Interestingly this is one area in which my advisory group is routinely asked to evaluate and report on.
We recently saw New Zealand’s dairy cooperative take a large shareholding in a Chinese dairy company and lose the investment. Is bank exchange protocol the only way to deal securely with China?
Yes, a bank exchange protocol is a better way to deal securely with China. The three countries we are discussing are members of ICC (International Chamber of Commerce, in Paris). It has its Arbitration Department which solves any issue of its members including the case you have described. I am a member of ICC Paris Financial Crime Risk & Policy Group and I would be delighted to help if this kind of problem recurs. There is usually room for arbitration, at some point.
Which nation frightens you the most: Russia or China?
Neither. Each country has its problems to resolve. China has apparently the internal issues of Hong Kong, the Uighurs and Taiwan. Then external issues of its defence, space technology, and an opaque position of its human rights most recently with Philippines, which advises China to mind its own business over maritime exercises. China’s expansionist adventure in African countries is over-stretching its forces as it seeks raw materials, especially coal, iron ore and oil derivatives.
Also there remains its Belt and Road trade plan, which requires immense resources for it to be successful in the long run.
As to Russia, it has its internal and external problems notably in the CIS countries. The former communist countries are being aroused for the Moslem religion. This is and with ever increasing intensity being enflamed by Turkey and the Moslem states in the Gulf.
Then there is the internal opposition against president Putin in Chechenia along with the continuing Ukrainian imbroglio over Crimea. Externally there is Russia’s and Japan’s complicated relationship over Kuril Islands near Kamchatka and also Russia’s strained relationships with Europe and the US Administration.
Underpinning all this is that its economic position has not been developed like the China’s. During the past 30 years China’s economic performance averaged a yearly 8% growth rate, while Russia, after the fall of communism in 1990 had nothing to match economic progress like China under Deng Xiaoping.
Gorbachev’s reforms plans of Perestroika and Glasnost came late. Brejnev was too dogmatic and there was a failure to emulate or even observe the Chinese reform plans of Deng Xiaoping.
Nincompoop Harry now a feral threat to royal family
The reason why Prince Charles and Prince William felt compelled to put some distance between they and runaway royal Prince Harry was that they are terrified about what he will pass onto his wife, Meghan Duchess of Sussex.
Ardent believers in the Green Revolution the three, Charles, William and Harry, share an ideology as well as blood. So how did it come to this? The answer is that Harry upon his marriage to Meghan bought deeply into the new victim culture.
His conversion into the victim culture led him into race and thus into the one movement, the most sensitive of all, that the royal family by its own behaviour had up to that moment avoided becoming embroiled in.
At their pomp and circumstance wedding the royal family was convinced that the marriage would ensure that they stayed clear of it for ever.
In the event it was the wedding that saw the royals irrevocably stained by it. Far from being insurance against race smearing, Meghan instead plunged the royal family head first into it.
By now in full victimhood Harry and Meghan held forth before Oprah in their famous double act blending the two, race and victimhood, into a televisual cocktail.
Since the start of the last century the royal family has primarily been in the business of caring, and being seen to care. This purpose was exemplified by Her Majesty the Queen Mother during World War 2, notably in her refusal to let the royals flee the blitzed London. Diana was another natural exponent in her devotion to off-beat causes such as AIDS and land mines.
Charles found a broad gauge caring outlet in matters of the environment most controversially in architecture before establishing himself as a green revolutionary, and he encouraged his two sons to follow him down this planetary saving path, which they did.
But at no stage did any member of the royal family establish themselves as a cause which is exactly what happened when in the tripartite Oprah show Meghan and Harry declared themselves as personifying race and victimhood.
These are the twin horses of the contemporary cultural apocalypse and it was for fear of further feeding these horses that Charles and William were compelled to avoid one-on-ones with their errant brother and son.
They knew that Meghan would pump her hapless husband for the finer details of the exchange and after that what? Another session with Oprah?
Much of today’s mass culture is still composed on screen and print of families coping with the unexpected and often the result of some terrible accident or the impact of something outside the familial control.
Harry’s segue into Hollywood was unexpected, but manageable. His dramatic entry before a global audience into full membership of the outrage industry was unexpected and unmanageable. Unexpected because his family had imagined that there would be a publicity armistice while his grandfather the Duke of Edinburgh lay on his deathbed.
The fact that the duo went ahead anyway with their victim statement shook the royal family if only by its timing.
Amid the British upper class and upper middle class there has been since the 1960s a reverse snobbery in which the privileged seek to portray themselves as hard done-by. Prince Charles is an example here with his references to his Spartan years at the progressive Gordonstoun school. Actually, his contemporaries point out, the pupils were far removed from the rigours that the prince describes.
We can go back further than this to Harry’s great uncle Edward V111 of Abdication fame who deliberately modified his tones into a near Cockney.
Tony Blair a product of a school even more rarified than Gordonstoun is said to have abraded his accent so that it chimed with his political career.
The syndrome in which those with a comfortable way of life seek to identify with those enduring less fortunate backgrounds is the cause of our times. It becomes supercharged when it takes to the streets giving vent to the cherished class belief that the privileged are responsible for the plight of the less privileged.
Nobody expected Harry to take to the streets on this one. He turned up instead on the broadcasting channels.
Until the “step back” from his royal duties Harry was regarded as a nincompoop though a well-intentioned one. He is now in a new guise which is that of a feral creature who if aroused will with his partner turn on his family wreaking further vengeance.
In establishing themselves as professional victims Harry and Meghan have introduced the equivalent of several new university degree courses in such fields as sociology and media studies and at a pinch in constitutional studies too.
Little-known foreign formula is nation’s policy backbone
United Nations Agenda 30 is the political blueprint for New Zealand. It is the operational master plan for the much better known climate change programme and its multitude of associated ideological objectives
According to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research the poorest households are likely to be disproportionately hurt by climate change regulations with the poorest 40 percent enduring six times the harm of the richest 20 percent..
Agenda 30 has the unquestioning support of the Labour Government and its satellite parliamentary Green Party. They view the agenda as the overriding passport to winning elections.
The same report by the long-established Institute of Economic Research considers the aggressive targeting of the nation’s agricultural sector will cause production to shift overseas and with no subsequent impact on global emissions.
The general public is unaware of Agenda 30 and its stern implications for New Zealand because the nation’s mainstream media zealously approves of any and all United Nations doctrines.
Agenda 30 was propounded by United Nations as a consolidation of its climate change campaign and with the intention of binding in countries such as New Zealand known to have an intellectual class particularly prone to ideology.
After a succession of episodes in places such as Rwanda and the Balkans in which United Nations was responsible for immense loss of life due to its inability to implement its promise to use military intervention to save them, the UN knew it had to find another reason to exist.
This was the beginning of its climate strategy and all the contrived crises and extinctions that have been its hallmarks and all duly propagated by a complicit media. This in spite of the UN even after being told by Taiwan of the imminent Covid epidemic, an authentic crisis, failed to do anything about the genuine version until it was too late.
Agenda 30 is the ticking political booby trap of our epoch. If anyone challenges it and seeks to dismantle it they get blown up. This is why the National Party opposition from time to time applies a delicate stethoscope to it. But that is all. Similarly with the ACT Party which also refuse to challenge the foreign doctrine being imposed on New Zealand and at such cost.
The National Party and ACT understand the ferocity in their upper income urban electorates of the intelligentsia response should they demean climatism as an article of faith.
New Zealand is considered to contribute somewhere between 0.02 and 0.17 of greenhouse gases. Yet New Zealand is used by United Nations as the showcase for its Agenda 30 which uses climate change ideology as its nosecone.
Economists point out that the government’s crash scheme to force the population into electric cars will most harm the poorer people who cannot afford them.
The success of United Nations in imposing Agenda 30 on New Zealand is that throughout the actual, the real crises of recent years, notably the homeless emergency and Covid 19 that the UN has succeeded in keeping Agenda 30 at the head of the to-do list and the overriding priority here.
This is the reason for routine government proclamations about the climate “emergency” and doing so when there have been seismic indications of another real potential emergency. But earthquakes for example are not a current preoccupation of activists under the spell of United Nations. .
The success of United Nations in inspiring unquestioning faith is so evident now in the absence of anyone daring to ask about its role in Myanmar. Burma as Myanmar is now known was an early member country of United Nations.
United Nations is often described as a vast bureaucracy and those involved with it will cheerfully go along with this admitting to privileged lifestyles and generous travelling allowances. They know though that in its new field of high profile ethical posturing it is ruthlessly efficient.
United Nations embedded intelligence channels are often far more effective than those of its nation state members. These networks allow it to accurately gauge the mood of these member countries in going along with its Agenda 30.
It knows that in its fervent adherence to Agenda 30 the New Zealand government can safely order the switching off for example of the nation’s natural gas which is one of the chief resources behind its economy.
Contrived self-harming the UN knows will be outweighed by the ability of activists to portray it in heroic terms, and as a tiny sacrifice to be endured in exchange for the approval of United Nations.
As a bureaucracy the United Nations own priority is to remain one, a bigger one, and this allows it to behave in a sovereign manner. When the government announced the end of oil exploration and did so to a university student gathering the power of United Nations to implement Agenda 30 via this sovereign influence takes on a tangible form.
.When it bailed out of effective peacekeeping United Nations turned to the environment and did so with a strategy designed to convey the impression that nothing much was done to save it before the UN arrived on the scene. This was wildly successful in New Zealand, in spite of its existing and much promoted clean green branding.
Property Investors Federation’s Richard Woodd and Tim Horsbrugh on how runaway house prices hit a brick wall. Or have they?
On the day that the roof fell in on New Zealand’s landlords the president of the Taranaki Property Investors Association Richard Woodd (pictured) delivered a speech on the technicalities of moving houses. Actually of transporting the house itself from one location to another.
Moving house, as in putting them on a truck and then installing them somewhere else, is a peculiarity of the residential side of the New Zealand property sector. Another peculiarity is how in an agrarian nation in which no more than 0.4 percent of the terrain is built on, why even modest residences can now attract buyers happy to pay $1 million or more.
On the day Mr Woodd was scheduled to talk on the technicalities of house moving, the trucking version, the government announced a series of what Mr Woodd described as “disincentives” to ensure that if house prices didn’t actually fall, then they at least hit a brick wall.
Specifically the government announced the end of expensing deductions on bank interest payments incurred by mortgages on rental properties. “We are seeing a capital gains tax,” said Mr Woodd, “and it is arriving by stealth.”
Tim Horsbrugh, president of the Wairarapa branch of the Property Investors Federation, was equally blunt. The government, he declared, was determined to “scare people away from property.”
In terms of leverage Mr Woodd said the government was putting into reverse the traditional gearing of rental residential property acquisition.
He noted however, that in recent times the “mom and pop” class of investor buying a second house to rent out in order to save for retirement or to leave something for their children had tended to be subsumed in the minds of politicians by large-scale professional investors seeking to take advantage of tax concessions originally designed for family home acquirers.
Tim Horsbrugh noted that there was a vacuum in the government’s campaign for getting first-home buyers under their own roof. There was still no solution, he insisted, to the central issue of increasing the supply of houses in order to meet first home acquirer demand.
So the question remains. Why are New Zealand houses so expensive and in a sparsely populated country which has within its borders an amplitude of the raw materials required to build them including timber, cement, steel and quarried stone?
Why, for example, does a subdivision house in the United States or Canada with an in-ground basement, stone paved ground floor, a storey above this, and a dormer storey in addition cost the same as its New Zealand counterpart? This will be a bungalow on supporting piles and a foot or so above terra firma, and with no basement or additional storeys.
Everyone blames everyone else for this anomaly. The building supplies market is said to be in cartel control. Local authorities are said to be impossibly stringent. Lenders are said to be impossibly mean and demanding to first home buyers.
In the background lurks the unspoken fact (by the entire politico-media class) that an emphasis encouraged by all political parties on an abstract university-nurtured education has deprived the nation of the applied productive skills needed to actually build the required houses. People such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians….
The mainstream media is financed in terms of advertising by the property sector. The result is the constant announcement of the latest house price peak plateaux attained delivered in the triumphant terms and tone usually reserved for victorious national sports teams.
Richard Woodd meanwhile traces this new government tax tourniquet-tightening on residential rental property owners to a much earlier determination by the government to empower the tenant side of the landlord/tenant relationship. This resulted in the rental accommodation “Warrant of Fitness.”
Then, he notes, interest rates continued to fall with the cheap money pouring into the obvious destination of property and the consequent frenzied bidding for the limited amount of houses available.
It was now, he notes, that the government switched from the bureaucratic emphasis characterised by strengthened tenancy rights via tribunals and now instead concentrated on legislation.
A feature of the new tax “disincentives” remains that officials concede that they are uncertain of the outcome, he notes.
This in turn translates into the culpability or otherwise of the landlord/property investor aka speculator being revealed as a burden or a blessing. Will the elimination of rental property mortgage tax deduction deter the “mom and pop” rental provider and thus open the way to professional corporate-style investors armed with their tax lawyers and accountants?
When the dust settles will there still be remaining what Richard Woodd describes as an engrained national impression that residential property is a one-way bet, a can’t lose proposition? Is there as Tim Horsbrugh indicates something on the supply side that is the true foundation of the accommodation problem?
Does the supply bottleneck truly reside in town planning regulations, absence of craftspeople, artificially high materials costs, or even in something as abstract as a deliberately choreographed climate of inflationary expectation? Or in some element that nobody has yet considered?
Royal Family, New Zealand, Coronation Street populated by strong women and biddable blokes
New Zealand was cited during the Oprah show as a refuge for the expatriate branch of the royal family. “We had suggested New Zealand, South Africa, Canada,” said Meghan to Winfrey, detailing her proposal for establishing possible residency in the commonwealth.
In court circles Harry remains viewed as being a bit of a chump. How then could this simple soul have been instrumental in igniting the most embarrassing episode to be endured by the Royal Family since the Abdication in 1936 of Harry’s great great uncle King Edward V111?
The reason for the success of Britain’s television saga Coronation Street is that it portrays a reality, a “truth,” as Oprah would say. It portrays strong women and feckless, pliant men.
So it is with the Royal Family. Women run the show. With the exception of the Duke of Edinburgh, the royal menfolk would at some stage simply let bygones be bygones for Harry and Meghan.
There will be no forgive-and-forget from Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, target directly and indirectly of so much of the Harry and Meghan venom. Or, for example, from Princess Anne with her low tolerance of deliberate silliness and pretence, let alone that of premeditated treachery.
In New Zealand women similarly run the show with females as governor general, prime minister, and in most of the power points below.
The Sussexes are a progressive couple. Harry adjusts himself to Meghan’s career which is in films. New Zealand has a film colony in its capital, Wellington, and an equally well defined mogul hierarchy.
New Zealand, and this is still not grasped in the Anglosphere, has its own hereditary royalty, the Maori royal family, a reassuring presence for the diversity-conscious couple.
In the Winfrey show there was much reference to the linkage of titles with the need of the duo for protection, security.
Meghan somehow led to believe or picking up the impression that in marrying a prince she would become a princess chimes with the Oprah topic that Palace courtiers had kept Meghan in the dark about procedures and protocols from precedence to curtseying. An office-bound Harry seemingly had neither the time nor the inclination to bring his bride up to speed.
It was the failure of the Palace to accord the Duchess of Windsor the title of Her Royal Highness that rankled most of all with the exiled Duchess and the Duke of Windsor, formerly Edward V111.
Those who wished to remain in the good books of David, as the Duke was known to his family, or even wish to see again the Duke and Duchess were careful to introduce the Duchess as HRH.
Royalty had its ancient beginnings in tribal warrior chiefs who successfully led their people in battle. Harry who served in Afghanistan with the British forces is in this valiant tradition.
It is also the most compelling reason why only remote New Zealand with its non-porous sea-girt border is the only Commonwealth country, indeed, only country anywhere, that can offer the physical security that the couple told Oprah that is their priority.
The royal family treats everyone the same way regardless of their birth or station. A continuation however of the campaign to destabilise the monarchy could see the rebel royals frozen out of a commonwealth country officially or unofficially.
Diana hovered like a wraith over this most recent and bizarre episode of the renegade royals with their determination to vindicate Harry’s mother by embarrassing the Palace. This rules out as a refuge France, a republic in which breathed their last the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Princess Diana (pictured with her sons.) History, Harry reminded Oprah, repeats itself.