Three year poll of polls

David Farrar has posted his monthly consolidation of public polls at Kiwiblog and has a three year All public polls chart:

Farrar points out:

This graph of the last three years is quite telling. National is polling around 5% higher than three years ago and Labour around 5% lower.

It also shows Greens mostly down on three years ago, so Labour+Greens are struggling to impress in the polls.

The big unknown – and bigger than three years ago – is NZ First who often do better in elections than in polls but their poll numbers stayed up after last year’s election until a recent downward trend.

Winston Peters will be hoping to be in a position to be a deal maker between National and Labour after the 2017 election (they have hoped that for the last few elections without getting there).

But there remains a big question mark over how a deal could be made involving all of NZ First, Labour and Greens.

It currently looks like next year’s election is still National’s to lose.

ACT are likely to retain their Seymour seat in Epsom but an unknown is whether they can add and MPs.

I think it’s quite likely that this may be Peter Dunne’s last term in Parliament so that creates opportunities for various parties in Ohariu. It’s most likely to be determined by National’s stance there as they should be favourites to take that seat if the want it.

The future of the Maori Party is also uncertain.

So regardless of the current polling and poll trends the 2017 elecion is up for grabs.

Trump is useful for something

I think that Donald trump is unlikely to win the Republican nomination as a presidential candidate, but he is proving useful for something – smashing down the oppressiveness of political correctness.

David Farrar posting at Kiwiblog suggests Trump created by the politically correct left and suggests Trump will not win, but he is changing the landscape for those who will follow.

He quotes from “a very astute article” at The Daily Beast:

When I say “the left,” I do not mean the Democratic Party—or, solely the Democratic Party.

Rather, the pestilence that is the Trump campaign is the result of a conglomeration of political, academic, media, and cultural elites who for decades have tried to act as the arbiters of acceptable public debate and shut down any political expression from Americans with whom they disagree.

They, more than anyone else, created ’s candidacy and the increasingly hideous movement he now leads.

Today, however, we have a new, more virulent political correctness that terrorizes both liberals and conservatives, old-line Democrats and Republicans, alike. This form of political correctness is distinctly illiberal; indeed, it is not liberalism at all but Maoism circa the Cultural Revolution.

The extremist adherents of this new political correctness have essentially taken a flamethrower to the public space and annihilated its center.

Topics in American life that once were the legitimate subjects of debate between liberals and conservative are now off-limits and lead to immediate attack by the cultural establishment if raised at all.

Any incorrect position, any expression of the constitutional right to a different opinion, or even just a slip of the tongue can lead to public ostracism and the loss of a job.

We’ve seen this happening internationally and also here in social media (Twitter is bad for it) and sometimes supported by journalists.

Clamping down on alternate views is also a problem in blogs like Whale Oil, The Standard and The Daily Blog (Kiwiblog is a notable exception amongst New Zealand’s major political blogs).

Trump’s staying power, however, is rooted in the fact that his supporters are not fighting for any particular political outcome, they are fighting back against a culture they think is trying to smother them into cowed silence.

What they want, more than any one policy, is someone to turn to the chanting mobs and say, without hesitation: “No, I will not shut up.”

How long this will go on, then, depends on how long it will take for those people to feel reassured that someone besides Trump will represent their concerns without backing down in the face of catcalls about racism, sexism, LGBTQ-phobia, Islamophobia, or any other number of labels deployed mostly to extinguish their dissent.

Some commenters at Kiwiblog have suggested we need a Trump in New Zealand politics but that’s very unlikely under our non-presidential MMP.

But we do need to stand up to and challenge the shout down and shut down  brigades.

The key is to stick to the issues and to not resort to personal attacks.

 

Labour lose-lose on TPPA

Andrew Little and Labour have got themselves in a potentially tricky position over the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, which may be lose-lose for them.

NZ Herald reported:

Mr Little said it would also be inappropriate to hold a signing ceremony for the deal two days before New Zealand’s .

“Our national day is a day that we celebrate our national identity and national sovereignty, and this is an agreement that potentially compromises our sovereignty.”

David Farrar headlined this as Stupid quote of the week  and called it “pretty pathetic, and just desperate”.

The first comment, by NK, quoted someone on Facebook:

“So initially they complained about the content.

Then, when the content turned out to be good, they complained that it didn’t go far enough for Dairy.

Now, that they realise it’s better than before, they complain about not knowing when it will be signed and on what desk and who will hold what pen.

Man, this is pathetic. Just be a man and stand up and congratulate your own former Leader Helen Clark for having started the TPPA. That would be statesmanlike.”

That is currently on 45 up ticks, 0 down ticks.

In more favourable blog territory for Labour Te Reo Putake posted Little: Labour to Defy TPPA.

Andrew Little has made it clear that the Labour Party in Government will defy provisions in the Trans Pacific parrtnership agreement that weaken NZ’s sovereignty.

Interviewed on Radio NZ this morning, the Labour leader spoke out about the pisspoor negotation that has led to the current National Party Government meekly accepting clauses that limit our right to determine who buys our land. Little revealed that three countries, including Australia, succesfully fought for exemptions to this onerous and oppressive clause. Australia will retain it’s ability to control its own borders, NZ … not so much.

It’s great to see Labour making it’s opposition to this secret sellout so very clear. This lines them up with both the Greens and NZ First, making the formation of an alternative Government a lot easier. Certainly, if Kiwi voters want to retain our country’s independence, a vote for any of those three parties is now a sensible option.

One last thing. Little has said that it’s understood the agreement will be signed here in NZ, just before we celebrate our nationhood on Waitangi Day. The cynicism of the Key Government apparently knows no bounds.

There were some supporting comments, like from Anne:

Labour and Little initially took a cautious approach because nobody knew what was in the agreement but they did make it very clear from around mid-year that any attempt to tamper with our sovereign rights would be vigorously opposed and they would not abide by any provisions in the agreement that endangered that sovereignty. I see Little’s latest comments as confirmation of this commitment. His tone of voice came through as determined – no ifs or buts.

And Heather:

The insult to New Zealanders is obvious with the choice of February 4th. Someone must be telling porkies – Chile and Peru would not have suddenly made up the date they were coming to New Zealand.

I am very pleased that Andrew Little has spoken out strongly, there is no no doubt in people’s minds what he is thinking. I hope that NZ First and the Greens can all reach common ground.

I like the idea that some have mentioned of referring to the National Government, they are the people responsible for the so many fronts we are failing in New Zealand. It is not Key alone.

But The Standard isn’t dominated by loyal Labourites. There was also quite a bit of dissing.

Macro:

I’ve lost hope in Labour – I cannot see how there could ever be any coalition on the “left” at this stage.

Chris:

The thing with Labour saying the right things is that they have a track record of flip-flopping. So while we might welcome what Little’s saying we need to take it with a grain of salt until Labour starts repairing the damage it’s done to its credibility. And that’s likely to take longer than the time it took to destroy it in the first place.

Michael:

Concur. We’ll have to watch Labour’s actions very carefully before we can trust them again. FWIW, I’d rather have a strong and principled Labour-led opposiiton than a flaccid, National-lite government. Right now we don’t even have that.

Sacha:

Way too late for anybody to be “defying” a trade agreement. Defiance needed to be before it was negotiated. And I believe it will take longer than 4 Feb for countries to be ready to sign it.

Bill:

Certainly clear from the interview that Andrew Little opposes at least some provisions of the TTPA. But remember Helen Clark being rolled out to take the wind from the sails of opposition to the whole shebang? Not saying the NZ Labour Party had a hand in that, but still…

And I wouldn’t call Little’s answer to the question about Goff and Shearer at the end of the interview unequivocal. Seemed to be saying his position was ‘a’ and there would be ongoing discussions with others.

Last thing. If defied, what penalty through those ISD settlements? And will Labour defy no matter what? Or will Labour defy and then back down if onerous financial penalties are handed down?

Actually things are looking up at The Standard because there are many comments and some good discussions with personal pissiness.

Paulm tried to diss off alternative views:

These threads will become a lot more interesting to read if everyone does not feed trolls like acrophobic.

Can everyone stop responding to acrophobic’s bait please?

Murray Simmonds supported that wityh “Well said, Paulm” But ropata responded…

you don’t have to read it … personally i find the arguments interesting

Unfortunately the thread then turned to flaming custard, but the discussions had been worthwhile they lasted.

It seems apparent that Labour has a hard job on the TPPA when they get such a mixed response from what should be one of their most supportive forums.

Little is running some precarious lines trying to be seen to be standing up to National on the TPPA but not doing enough for the left. They risk isolating themselves in a lose-lose position.

Edgeler explains – achievable versus futile

David Farrar thinks Graeme Edgeler’s attempt to abolish racist legislation – see Edgeler gets support for racist law reform – is a good idea in A bill for an MP to pick up:

There’s 20 or so MPs who don’t have a bill in the ballot. I hope one of them picks this one up.

Others want to be much more radical, eg wiseowl:

What about a private members bill repealing all the race based legislation that is dividing this country .

Who would be brave enough to try that?

Cameron Slater at Whale Oil also wants it to go much further Internet Lawyer wants racist Maori law repealed:

Why isn’t Graeme Edgeler concerned about all the laws that provide Maori with advantage over non-Maori?

The Treaty itself would be a great example of this.  Even though it is a partnership document, it splits the country into Maori and non-Maori.  We even have a Maori electoral system, and so on.

Surely if this law is of such huge concern we should be removing ALL race-based law making from the books, including the provision of Whanau Ora, Maori Electorates, local council Maori Statutory Boards, Maori Land Courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, all references to tangata whenua, removal of the treaty from laws, dissolution of Maori Wardens, and the dissolution of Te Puni Kokri, Maori Television and all other race-based media.

Edgeler explains the reality – he is trying something that’s potentially achievable as a sole person who isn’t an MP:

Doing many of the other things you discuss, some of which I may support, some of which I may not, would be complicated. Some would be impossible in a member’s bill, as they’re budget issues.

I would be wasting my time, and any MP trying to advance a bill on the issues would be wasting their time.

I’m a guy with a blog, and a twitter account. I had a couple of spare hours, and thought I could write something that might actually get an MP to advance a member’s bill and possibly change the law. I reckon this has a shot. And it seems you don’t really disagree.

If I wrote a blogpost calling for the abolition of the Treaty of Waitangi, there is zero prospect of that happening. And if it ever does happen, it won’t be because I tweeted it as a suggestion. I could draft a member’s bill to abolish Whanau Ora, but no MP would take it up.

This is one thing that’s simple to do that could actually change the law in a small way. So that’s why I’m talking about this and not something else: I reckon I have a chance of changing this.

Edgeler does have a chance of succeeding with what he has proposed. It’s a sensible and pragmatic approach

And Wiseowl and Slater have no chance of getting what they want.

Slater added:

I did read the post…and took it to its logical conclusion…that if we are against racism in our laws then let’s cleanse them all. This is one of those cases when racism is racism…you can’t remove one law because it is racist and leave others standing there…those are still racist laws…shouldn’t they go too?

There’s nothing logical about what he suggested. You can remove one racist law and leave others. A lot of legislation addresses specific things without being total reforms of multiple laws that have no chance of passing through Parliament.

Absolute Power, Hollow Men and authors

I found a post on Kiwiblog on a review of Ian Wishart’s Absolute Power (on Helen Clark). This is from 2008 but has some relevance now in relation to Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics.

Farrar posted Review of Absolute Power.

Ian Llewellyn of NZPA has done a review of the Helen Clark biography “Absolute Power” by Ian Wishart. It’s a fair and balanced review in my opinion.

From the review:

The book, released last week, is a collection of articles which attempt to prove Wishart’s thesis that the current Government is corrupt and Prime Minister Helen Clark entered Parliament under false pretences to push a hidden agenda.

The book is similar in many ways to Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men, and they share many of the same strengths as well as flaws.

They also both reveal as much as about the author’s world view as they do about their subjects.

Both gathered exhaustive (and in places exhausting) material and did meticulous research, but the impression is the evidence has been gathered and presented to reach a pre-determined position.

In Hager’s case it was that National was controlled and driven by dark forces ranging from big business, the religious right and foreign interests.

Wishart aims at the other end of the political spectrum and sees Miss Clark as someone who would do anything to get into power and do anything to hold on to it, all in order to push a hidden feminist, socialist agenda on an unsuspecting New Zealand.

It is unclear whether political blindness or naivety colours both authors’ views as they often see quite ordinary political processes as something far more sinister.

In Hager’s case, the lobbying of big business and internal caucus power struggles were proof of conspiracy. …

The fact that people join or lobby political parties to push a view that they believe is a better way for the world seems to be lost upon both authors.

Much of the book is spent on Wishart’s arguments over whether it is ethical to get into the personal lives of politicians.

He concludes that it is necessary to expose hypocrisy.

Some of the material is an interesting take on political events, such as the downfall of former police commissioner Peter Doone and similar events.

It also documents the habit of many politicians to say one thing in opposition and another in government.

Wishart believes his book portrays a pattern of behaviour that makes Labour and Miss Clark unfit to hold office.

For his followers and those who dislike the current administration, the book will be a gospel.

Miss Clark’s supporters will dismiss it as the ravings of an obsessed individual.

The vast majority of the population will simply not care either way as they accept things are not black and white; instead there are many shades of grey.

Most people accept that others are prone to make mistakes and get things wrong, as much as they get things right.

In the end Absolute Power is not Absolute Gospel, but neither is it entirely Absolute Nonsense.

Farrar’s responses:

 Ian Wishart didn’t just form a view as he started to put his book together that Helen Clark was no good – he has been of that view for some time.

I can’t agree too strongly here. Hager would have you believe that every business donor and supporter is motivated by self interest and greed, rather than a genuine belief in their views and policies being best for NZ. Likewise Wishart does fall down when he reads too much into fairly predictable stuff such as the PMs Office not being very helpful too him.

This is not to say that Wishart’s compilation of all the scandals under Clark is not valuable. People have become so used to them, they hardly register now, and the one thing they all have in common is that in almost every case Clark or her coterie lied and covered up – from paintergate to corngate to speedgate (yes I know all those gates sound lame but they make for easy reference) to doongate.

NZPA should be congratulated for doing a review of the book, rather than just ignore it. I suspect those on the left will not like the comparisons to Hager’s book (which is treated like the Koran by some Labour Ministers as they refer to it daily), but likewise some on the right will not like the dismissal of much of the book as reading too much into everyday politics.

Books that attack parties in power will always be controversial.

First INCITE: Politics newsletter today

The first monthly newsletter from INCITE: Politics is due out today. As it is by subscription, and as it is  featuring political and business mercenary Cameron Slater I won’t be paying for it and won’t be quoting it here.

The name INCITE is a curious choice – at a glance it might seem like it’s taking the piss but editors Cameron Slater and Simon Lusk appear to be serious about this project.

Lusk allowing himself to be promoted on Story with Duncan Garner recently may not have been a coincidence.

When launched launched last week – see Incite Politics by subscription announced – contributing commentators were listed:

Comment will be provided across the political spectrum with contributions from:

Carrick Graham, Matthew Hooton, David Farrar, Chris Trotter, Jordan Williams, Cam Slater, Simon Lusk, Willie Jackson and many others.

Graham, Lusk and Hooton are well known political and business lobbiests who promote business or political interests for fees. It is known that Graham and Lusk have paid Slater for posts at Whale Oil – there have been claims that they have written material that has been posted under Slater’s name.

There must be some scepticism about the claim INCITE will be “a practical, dispassionate analysis of politics”.

By yesterday the contributor list had shrunk.

Carrick Graham, Matthew Hooton, David Farrar, Cam Slater, Simon Lusk, Willie Jackson and many others.

There had been questions asked about why a political subscription newsletter would be launched just as politics is winding down for the long summer break. Slater tried to explain yesterday:

Well, there are a number of reasons for that.

Firstly this report and the coming monthly reports are a bit different. All the contributors in the first issue and contributors in coming issues have signed up to deliver their thoughts in this report because it is going to be different. We are going to be forward looking not backwards looking. Have a look at all the political commentary since parliament rose for the break. It is all about what happened in the past year and nothing at all about what should happen. In due course Fairfax will do their annual prediction post but that is more about flippancy than about accuracy.

Politics for me has been a life long addiction/hobby/career. Just because lazy and inept politicians and the equally lazy media have gone on holiday doesn’t mean we should stop talking about politics. The issues that matter to voters don’t go away over Christmas.

But interest in thinking and talking about the issues does dissipate for at least a month. It’s bills that don’t go away, and some have suggested this is an alternative revenue attempt as Whale Oil business model seems to be waning.

The launch of INCITE on Whale Oil last week didn’t attract much attention, with only ten comments, five of which were by Slater and Pete Belt. Yesterday’s promo only attracted one comment.

That suggests a lack of interest in paid content from Slater. His free content has hardly been riveting lately. Whale Oilers will also be aware that any criticism or questioning would be inviting bans. Message control has been draconian there for the last eighteen months.

In what looks like vote of no confidence in the Whale Oil readership yesterday David Farrar posted a discount promo: 15% off for Kiwiblog readers.

Kiwiblog readers who want to subscribe to the monthly newsletter can get a 15% discount at this link.

Discounting via a rival website just prior to the first edition is certainly an interesting move. The on Kiwiblog will not be encouraging for INCITE.

One example, from Jimbo:

Most of those named commentators are well known for pushing unacknowledged interests and crafting opinions for murky paymasters.

Not sure why you would want to keep that sort of company, DPF. I certainly won’t subscribe.

Currently 20 upticks, 1 downtick.

Farrar responded:

I am happy to write and do polls for whomever will pay me.

That confirms presumptions that Farrar’s Curia polling company will be involved in “exclusive polling and polling analysis”.

The cost to produce INCITE won’t be insignificant. Contributions from Slater, Lusk and possibly Graham may be for free – cynics may suggest that Lusk and Graham may pay to have their client’s views promoted as has happened at Whale Oil.

But polling isn’t cheap. Farrar says he will be paid for his contributions, and others may want something for their efforts sold as exclusive as well.

Unless special mate’s rates and deferred payments are involved the cost of each edition must be in the thousands.

One hundred subscriptions at the monthly premium of $35 is only $3,500 which presumably includes GST.

On subscriptions, Tom Barker at Kiwiblog:

Annual subscribers beware. Slater was appointed editor of “Truth”- and it folded five months later. Don’t expect a refund on the balance of your subscription when his latest venture does the same.

A three month subscription has no discount, so those who are curious and not winding down for the year may take a one off look. They may be satisfied enough to keep paying for more. Or not.

The last comment currently on Kiwiblog: “I dunno. I admire the chutzpah.”

NOTE: If anyone has subscribed it will be interesting to hear what you think. Quoting examples is fine (I think Slater quotes paywalled NBR articles) but as it is subscription not too much please.

A response to Garrett’s 2% doctrine

David (Three Strikes) Garrett has a guest post at Kiwiblog that has received a lot of support there but also raised some important questions in opposition to his claims and call for an immediate stop to immigration of Muslims.

See Garrett on 2% Muslims and immigration (here) and Guest Post: David Garrett on A case for immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration (Kiwiblog).

Some commenters at Kiwiblog responded to Garrett’s call for taking measures to stop Muslims from reaching 2% of the New Zealand population (they are currently about 1.2%).

Garrett:

What do we lose by stopping Muslim immigration right now? My argument is that we lose absolutely nothing of value.

Kimbo:

The knowledge, certainty and example that we are a non-sectarian nation that judges people on their actions, instead of their colour, creed…or religion. A piece of us dies if we compromise on that.

Ryan Sproull:

Another way to put it would to simply say: we would lose our democracy.

Jack responded:

Kimbo, Sproull, and RRM in posts above suggest that blocking Islamic immigration might end our democracy.

On the other hand, admitting a flow of people who hate our Western democracy, might be more likely to end it.

Sproull expanded on his point:

Well, blocking immigration would end our democracy, by definition. We would immediately change from a country that discriminates only based on deeds to one that discriminates based on thoughts.

It’s true that admitting a flow of people who hate democracy might end it, but stopping them includes both blocking theocratic Muslim extremists AND people who look like they might want to block immigration based on religion.

And:

I mean, really, if you take freedom of thought and freedom of religion as essential to democracy, what we have here is a public declaration by David Garrett that he recommends destroying democracy in New Zealand.

Is there some sort of watch list he should be on? I know he hasn’t actually done anything, just thought it, but we can’t afford to be politically correct about this stuff.

And:

I think that if a democracy had tried to prevent Nazi immigration by blocking all Protestants, it would no longer have been a democracy.

Of course, that’s only an argument against religious discrimination if you think that freedom of religion/thought is essential to democracy, and/or if you think that democracy is worthwhile. It could be that democracy with freedom of religion/thought simply can’t exist, because it can’t protect itself from insidious immigration threats, and so some new kind of government must be adopted – a infidelocracy.

And:

Then there’s the problem with people who are born in New Zealand, or non-Muslim immigrants, who become Muslim while in New Zealand, perhaps after accessing information about Islam on the internet.

I’m sure that can be sorted with a combination of strong government controls on access to Islamic websites, and a state advertising campaign reminding New Zealand citizens that a strong infidelocracy requires that good citizens report any friends or acquaintances that start acting a bit Muslimy.

Mikenmild:

Good point, Ryan. Assuming we stop all Muslim immigration, what would we do about the one already here, including the extra dangerous unborn generations? The Eurabia-type theories hold that they will outbreed the locals, so DG’s magic 2% limit might still e breached.
We would have to deport any Muslim and prohibit those beliefs to be sure that our liberal democracy was secure.

Sproull:

Firstly, it’s our infidelocracy, since by that point we will have lost the right to call ourselves a liberal democracy.

Secondly, yes, you’re absolutely right. In addition to the tactics I’ve already suggested, we can also:

* Offer $5000 to any Muslim willing to be surgically sterilised
* After a Muslim family has two children, if they get pregnant again, their extra children can be rehomed to be raised by normal families
* Heavily fund evangelists from non-Muslim religions to get to work converting Muslims
* Start offering cash payouts to non-Muslims willing to give birth to and raise non-Muslim children
* Make sure that all Muslims register as Muslims in a national database so that we can keep track of the Muslim:Citizen ratio (with a maximum of 1:50)

These efforts, in addition to carefully censoring the nation’s internet and giving teachers and citizens the tools necessary to spot and report unregistered Muslims, will ensure that we never reach that dreaded tipping point.

Garrett:

Ryan: Have you done a family tree at all? Don’t have a chap called Chamberlain in there somewhere??

Garrett lauded Churchill in his post, which began:

I had just finished Volume I of Sir Winston Churchill’s WW II memoirs, “The Gathering Storm”, which covers his period in the political wilderness in the 1930’s. In developing my argument with my friend’s wife, I saw striking parallels with where we are now with regard to Muslim , and the position of Western Europe during the latter 1930’s.

Perhaps Garrett wants the ANZACs to follow Churchill’s example and follow Britain into another Muslim state attack in the Dardanelles. 2% of Turks might still be a threat.

I don’t understand what parallel Garrett is alluding to.

Germany discriminated against people because of their religious beliefs. Quite drastically. Many Jewish refugees tried to escape to safety. There were no blogs in the 1930s but there may have been Garrett predecessors warning New Zealand about the dangers of 2% of Jews, or communists, or homosexuals, or Gypsies, or any of the groups persecuted and executed by the Nazis.

Garrett doesn’t want to provide any refuge in New Zealand for people trying to escape being bombed by the Syrian government or beheaded by ISIS, so he can live comfortably with his prejudices.

I hope that we don’t get anywhere near 2% of Garrettites in New Zealand but I don’t think we should ban them from running restaurants here.

Garretts and Muslims shoukld have equal rights to speak and live here.

Garrett on 2% Muslims and immigration

David (Three Strikes) Garrett has a guest post at Kiwiblog that has received a lot of support there but also raised some important issues about his  call for an immediate stop to immigration of Muslims.

Guest Post: David Garrett on A case for immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration

It is really very simple. Every western country which has allowed its Muslim population to exceed 2% has experienced problems generated by that community – or at least arising because of their presence within those societies. The severity of the “problems” appears directly related to the proportion of Muslims in any given western society.

In Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Sweden – and now Australia – there have been civil disturbances which can be directly linked to the presence of a sizeable Muslim community. Those disturbances range from harassment of women dressed “immodestly” at the low end, to mass murder – most recently in France – at the other.

Garrett and others have brought up the 2% (or some number plucked out of I’m not sure where) threshold. I haven’t seen research that backs it up.

When New Zealand has allowed it’s ACT supporter population to speak freely it has threatened intolerance and civil disturbance (actually that’s probably unfair on ACT, I doubt that David Seymour would go anywhere near supporting Garrett’s case.

I have asked the question many times – on this very blog and in my life in the real world – “why would our experience of allowing a Muslim population to develop above 2% be any different from that of all other western countries’?”  The usual response is that there is no evidence of anything bad happening here. The response to that non-argument is of  course “not yet – we  have not yet reached what appears to be  the tipping point of 2%”.

Garrett went all Godwin.

I truly believe we are, in a very real sense, in exactly the position Western Europe was in the  early 1930’s. The prevailing sentiment among both  the political elites  and the population of Britain at large was then, as ours is  now, one of tolerance, or at least wilful blindness to the dangers posed by the rising tide of fascism in Germany. It is important to be reminded that the very word “fascism” had none of the pejorative connotations in 1933 that it most definitely carried ten years later.

If I recall correctly Hitler’s fascist state tried to drive out and exterminate one particular religious group.

Our rulers and the political elites seem blandly unconcerned about Muslim immigration into our country, and deride people like me who warn of the possible consequences of it. I recently received a letter from the colourless Minister of Immigration in response to my letter expressing concern. The Hon. Minister tartly informed me that: “New Zealand does not select [immigrants] on the basis of race or religion.” How utterly un-reassuring. One can almost see the rolling eyes of the 22 year old staffer drafting a reply  to “another crack pot”. The letter did not even warrant the Minister’s signature.

That doesn’t sound like a tart response from the Minister of Immigration.  It sounds like a very basic tenet of a decent democratic country.

Why act now?

Again it is very simple – if we don’t act now, it will be too late if doomsayers like me are right. We are endlessly lectured by the greenies about “tipping points”; that if this or that greenhouse gas emission is not reduced to some unfeasible level  by next week,  unstoppable catastrophic climate change will ensue. Once it has happened, we are told, it will be too late to reverse it.

Well, I know very little about climate change, but simple logic tells me that if I am right about the dire effects of a Muslim population above 2%, it will be impossible to do anything about it. The reason is again simple. We have 50,000 odd Muslims now, a bit more than 1% of our population. There are nowhere near enough of them to cause any significant trouble – yet.

Even if we closed our borders to all of the Muslim faith immediately  – I would go further than that, and exclude all  immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries – we could not stop the ones we already have from multiplying. Given their greater birthrate, it is a certainty that in 10 or perhaps 20 years at the most, we will have a Muslim population well above the crucial tipping point of 2%.

He repeats the ‘tipping point’ of 2%.  “But simple logic tells me that if I am right about the dire effects of a Muslim population above 2%” – is a claim without logic and especially without anything solid to back it up.

What do we lose by stopping Muslim immigration right now? My argument is that we lose absolutely nothing of value. Unlike the vibrant communities which have developed from our South East Asian immigrants – which by and large have had overwhelmingly positive effects on our society – there is nothing from overseas experience which suggests there is anything of value to be gained from having communities of stern bearded men and their subjucated women among us. And that’s assuming none of them are or could be  terrorists.

We lose a significant moral position for a start.

And Garrett’s stereotype of one a half billion Muslims shows the depth of his argument – his post is shallow, dangerous prejudice.

And he seems ignorant of the fact that many Muslim immigrants and students come from South East Asia, and the Pacific (Fiji).

I can do without that, thanks very much. I much prefer that my beautiful daughter is allowed to go to the beach wearing whatever she likes, and that my son isn’t influenced by people who think his wife should also be his servant. Muslim immigrants are a very real threat to our way of life. We should not take one more of them.

Garrett’s daughter can go to the beach wearing almost anything she likes – but on most beaches it would be recommended she wear something, we do have some basic codes of dress in New Zealand.

Intolerant and inciteful people like Garrett are a threat to our way of life, even if they are allowed to breed to beyond 0.2% of the population.

David Farrar makes it clear “For the avoidance of doubt, the post is the opinion of the author, not of Kiwiblog. Kiwiblog accepts guest posts, even when I disagree with the views in them.”

One comment well down the thread, by Inthisdress:

Mr. David Farrar. I address this to you because let’s face it Mr Garrett is hardly the sharpest tool in the box, and I’d hate to feed his delusive Churchill-complex, by coming across like a appeaser.

I’ve seen some pretty low stuff on blogs before today. I must admit I always thought that when it came to puerile bigotry that The Standard pretty much had cornered the market.

But seriously, for a blog started by an immigrant, of such mixed heritage, given the troubled history and outright barbarism meted out to a religious group, simply justified on the basis of their religion, mind, by derelict politicians hell-bent on reclaiming their careers on the backs of human suffering, well this just takes the biscuit.

Are there any other examples of ‘wilderness years’ politicians capitalising on ignorant prejudices to inflame populist opinion for little more than their own gratification. Think! There must be some examples we can draw from.

To allow a misguided individual, who frankly strikes me as someone in love with the sound of his own ego, to pass off a fictitious scenario based on a dinner party conversation, in which he proposes what is essentially hate-speech backed up with some unproven anecdotal statistic, is an unnecessary, destructive act.

Then to throw a natty little disclaimer at the end as if you are doing us a favour and making some kind of stand for ‘free speech’ Cowardly, at best, borderline sociopathic at worst..

There does seem to be some ego involved in Garrett’s post, he congratulates himself several times in comments.

But I disagree with Inthisdress as much as I disagree with Garrett. If Garrett had asked me to post his 2% of intolerance I would have posted it, as he has as much right to write in New Zealand as any Muslim.

I don’t support the religion of Islam in any way, it has never appealed to me. But I support the basic right of Muslims (or Hindus or Jews or anyone) not to be prejudiced against in New Zealand simply because of their religious beliefs.

We should do all we can to exclude potential terrorists from emigrating here, but checks on that should not be based on religion.

The next post responds more to the Garrett 2% doctrine:

A response to Garrett’s 2% doctrine

An LF admirer

I don’t bother with Kiwiblog’s General Debate much these days, it mostly seems to be the same old names and same old arguments. But I had a browse last night and find a couple of gems from ‘Reid’ from Tuesday. First a vote of support for Lauda Finem:

Good old LaudaFinem strikes yet again, shedding sunlight on a topical issue where our useless, idiot, pathetic, cowardly and very very stupid moronic media, utterly, yet again, fail to, in any and every single way possible. This time, explaining the background to the aussie deportations: the vital why, not the what, but the why. The critical and crucial element to the issue that, yet again, our vapid Fourth Estate not just glosses lightly over but completely fails even to mention, let alone explicate in detail. A task that this intrepid overseas website does again and again and again and again. It’s one of the best news sites in NZ.

They might not appreciate him saying “in New Zealand”.

And then in response to this…

I know you’ve mentioned Lauda Finem for a different reason, Reid, but do you have any idea why the people behind that blog are currently at war with Pete George? I’ve checked out Pete George’s blog and, well, let’s just say that he’s under siege.

…he launches into a same old style rant.

No I don’t. But at a guess the beige badger almost always gets the wrong end of the stick and that’s fine. For example with his rape culture meme. However what’s not fine is he then gets on his high horse just like his hero and mentor Dunne. So not only is he wrong but he’s also self-righteous.

That’s similar to how Lauda Finem do things, making things up and repeating  them (this is old repeats from Reid) – it’s called deliberate lying.

Which also, I suspect with LA, would be fine too. But where he then crosses the line is that in his roaring galloping self-righteous mentalism (which is in fact, logic and all things Holy actually totally incorrect every whichway you can imagine), he then picks a personal target which in his insanity personifies his outrage over “x” and in his weak, pathetic and most importantly dishonest disengenuous proceeds to do his level best to take down his target, using whatever means at his disposal.

Of course he’s such a moron it’s like being mauled by an arthritic church mouse with cancer on their deathbed about to die that same evening but even so, because of his idiocy combined with his insanity, the target is invariably innocent, and I think that’s why LA are doing what they’re doing.

Funny. And ironic.

Of course I don’t know, I’m guessing. I don’t know them, I have no association with them apart from admiring their contribution to the NZ media fabric which is considerable and if they read this, thank you.

Reid calls most people sheeple amd morons because they don’t agree with his claims the world is about to end, but admires LF. Says a lot.

But that’s my theory on it.

FWIW I was surprised to read those posts too. I thought PG is such a profound lightweight, why bother, who cares what he does. I wouldn’t have personally, given the weight of most of the issues they target.

BTW, I know you pointed me to an article the idiot once wrote about me. I’ve never read it and I never will, for the abovementioned reasons. Life is too short to waste time on thinking about thoughts emanating from a fool like him.

He wasted quite a few words not thinking about me.

He later comments:

Cows don’t try to jump open gates nasska.

That’s why.

Compared to sheeple cows can solve quantum physics and space travel and would get every single Nobel prize for both this and the next century, compared to the collective mind-power were it all combined, of sheeple.

So naturally I don’t want to honour actual sheeple by pretending they’re as brainy as a cow.

They might misunderstimate their total and actual stupidity in the scheme of things, and start thinking things such as: Shillary would actually make a really good POTUS, and such-like.

Then where would we be.

Plus I don’t give a fuck about equality and in my personal life I try to be as evil, cruel and unequal as I can possibly be without getting arrested, just cos I can.

Perhaps that’s why he admires Lauda Finem so much.

Three year poll trends

David Farrar has posted Public Polls October 2015 at Kiwiblog, which combines all public polls over the past three years.

There’s details in Farrar’s post, but at a glance:

National have their ups and downs but are mostly staying within a 45-50% band. If this continues being on an up swing at election time will be important. After three terms they could just as easily drop below the ‘single party plus a handfuil of support seats’ zone.

Labour have recovered from last year’s election low and currently seem to have settled into a low thirties zone, with more fluctuation than any time over the last three years. They need to lift into at least the 35-40% zone to look like a lead party rather than part of an alternative bunch.

Greens are also fluctuating more apart from their post-eelction spike, but there’s signs their support has eased back a bit.

Unusually for NZ First they have maintained their election level of support and appear to be trending upwards.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,147 other followers