On guest posts

From time to time I’ve said that guest posts are welcome here. Just email me ideas, links or fully written posts. It’s quite a different level to commenting, but I have always encouraged diversity of information and opinion, whether it be via comment or post. Sometimes I post things here that I don’t agree with but that I think will encourage a good discussion.

Some thoughts on this from Gezza:


Corky / 22nd May 2020

… To be fair [new National leader Todd Muller’s maiden speech after election to Parliament] was a good speech…not that I’m any expert on maiden speeches. Too soft and accommodating for my liking. I can get all that stuff from Labour. I want National to be hard; uncompromising and forward thinking…not inclusive. We have had the bs inclusive approach for over 30 years…has it been a success?

Gezza / 22nd May 2020

Ah yes, but the thing is, being truly inclusive as a leader can or should also mean disciplining those who harm that inclusivity with anti-social & anti-inclusive behaviours.
PS: Define “forward thinking” please. No idea what you think that means at the moment. Very vague.

Corky / 22nd May 2020

”Define “forward thinking” please. No idea what you think that means at the moment. Very vague.”

Not really. Forward is the opposite of back or behind. So, if we move forward in the political sense, what has been left behind?

  1. Maori bs.
  2. Weak policing ( corrupt policing?)
  3. Marxist education.
  4. Moronic Covid legislation and rules.
  5. Immigration issues.
  6. Woman’s Affairs. Race Relations Office…and other quangos I forget.
  7. 
RMA.

Have no fear, though. It will be business as usual with Muller. Maybe a few tweaks, here and there. The test of his mettle will be when he pisses liberals off.”


Thanks for that, Corky. Straight up, honest, & to the point response. I think those are all very valid “hot button” issues that are directly relevant, & important, to New Zealand’s political & social scene, to voters, & to all governments’ policy settings.

Thinking about them, I’d say most – maybe all – of those “headliners”, each encapsulates a broad range of related sub-issues – which is probably why simplistic solutions such as “getting rid of them” hasn’t been just been “done & dusted” by any goverment, despite them nearly always being high on the political agenda. (But you have expanded on some of those in more detail in past debates which are now yesterday’s ‘fish & chip paper’.)

Meaty stuff in all those for possible future blog debates. Who knows? We might both even be surprised at some shared views on some of them.

If PG’s happy to accommodate me, & I get some time & headspace for it, I might have a go over the next few days or weeks at knocking up some posts on some of those topics, to see what others have to say about the unavoidable sub-issues they raise.

Or perhaps even you might like to? Your writing’s certainly up to it.

No one here seriously expects literary or journalistic excellence.

PG’s frequently said he’s willing to host guest posts, but very few contributors have shown the gonads or commitment to do substantive posts, preferring instead to just pop a comment here and there into Open Forums that sometimes get overly long & convoluted, broken up & peppered with unrelated discussions; to just post links to where others have done their thinking for them; or some to just snipe occasional riddles or BB rounds they think are RPGs from the sidelines & then run away again.

You or anyone else can either email guest posts to him, or post a substantial (not necessarily long) <i>Comment</i> in Open Forum & he can lift it & turn it into a post – either off his own bat, or in response to a timely email – as he’s done with many of Missy’s “London Correspondent” reports- & occasionally with others’ hoped-for thought-provoking efforts.

The guy virtually has to carry this small but mighty blog on his own. I dunno how on earth he does it, day after day, year after year. I couldn’t find the energy. He’s something special in that respect.

But I reckon we regulars who take advantage of his hospitality & generosity could do more to contribute post contributions & make YNZ broader & discussions more focussed. There are some good thinkers here. They influence my own views & I welcome their contributions as I’ll never have all the answers & nearly always mull over new information or cogent arguments. We probably all should.”

Free Speech – are we for or against it?

Post from Gezza:


“OPINION: It seems I’m as Aryan as you can get, with a DNA test to prove it, but I’m less thrilled about it than Lauren Southern, the suitably blonde agitator who wasn’t allowed to speak at the Auckland Council’s Bruce Mason Centre.

The 23-year-old self-described journalist calls to mind an inane pop song once banned by the BBC, Jump Up and Down and Wave Your Knickers in the Air.

She’s white and proud and wants to kick arse about the accident of her birth, for which she has no more reason to preen than the rest of us whiteys. But boy, is she shrill, is she self-righteous, and is she in-your-face provocative.

Rosemary McLeod: The Free Speech Coalition is wasting its money.

ROSEMARY MCLEOD

Rosemary McLeod: The Free Speech Coalition is wasting its money.

I’ve taken a dislike to her. In case you wondered. Southern and fellow Canadian Stefan Molyneux are internet identities with a far-Right agenda that would have appalled Bruce Mason, a leading Kiwi playwright and sensible liberal.”

More…

… … …
As I posted the other day, Rosemary McLeod is at it – a classic liberal feminist, playing the “Nazi Aryan Maiden” card, without citing any actual evidence to back up what she appears to have heard elsewhere.

She, like the rest of us, has no idea exactly what these two were going to say, & she is appalled that Don Brash is in favour of allowing people to express “racist” views. I happen to agree with Brash on this.

My take: Molyneux is a sleazy character who, among other fad topics of appeal to the low-IQ North American conservative to far right spectrum reportedly peddles the debunked “IQ is linked to race” theory. I haven’t yet seen him doing this – but I wouldn’t be surprised if he does.

if you’ve watched a lot of his 90 -120 minute plus interminable online harangues – as I now have – after half an hour of his superciliously snide side-comments you can quickly write him off as awful to listen to, devious, a frequent distorter of facts & outright liar, whose false claims among the facts are easily disproved and dismissed. Which is what should happen.

So far I haven’t heard him directly advocating that whites are superior, although the hoary old ‘race-based IQ’ revival he is said to promote carries that obvious implication, disguised as it is with the false claim that Ashkanazi Jews are top of the high IQ list and whites are only at third from top in the pecking order.

Southern is another story. She doesn’t lie. She holds strong views about the values of Western European culture & systems & argues against people and groups who practice white racism & have cultural practices, ideas & values that conflict with or are inconsistent with them, & challenges those who allow, support, or encourage people traffickers to keep up the flow of floods of people from such countries into Western countries, where there is evidence of the real & projected adverse outcomes & impacts on the host populations & their own cultures that these sudden massive influxes create.

Both of them seem to have views also on the impact of feminism and its attendant anti-male rhetoric & influence in modern society because of the negative outcome statistics for, basically, emasculated, anxiety-ridden, lost young men – often fatherless – who have grown up indoctrinated by a female-friendly childcare & education system and are now showing up quite prominently in sociological studies apparently believing that being typically male makes them violent, dominating, evil people, & so never become young men & never get out there & realise their potential.

That, contrary to the incessant clamour of strident feminists, stats show that, in the US at least, ‘the system’ is actually now benefiting women far more than men, something which is not known and/or acknowledged by feminazis.

These are valid issues that need an airing & to be discussed in rational debate. I have never heard Southern claim anything about whites or females being superior.

In this article I think McLeod proceeds to display her own intellectual superiority blinkers. I think she rather proves their case that free speech is now actually being suppressed by such people as Rosemary who just don’t want to hear & debate this.

Gezza on Blair’s reaction

Gezza’s take on Tony Blair’s reaction to a very critical Chilcot Report: The Iraq Inquiry


I watched Blair’s Press Conference, also shown live on Al Jazeera, like millions of others around the world will have done in the Northern Hemisphere. To be fair, he fronted up. The conference went on for 90 minutes.

He tried to link Saddam to 911—totally discredited years ago. Amongst various other justifications, he blamed the UN—specifically Russia and France—for vetoing a Security Council authorisation for the invasion. What impact is this going to have on the EU separation?
He said Al Qaeda became ISIS. He either genuinely has no idea what the real situation is—or he thinks others haven’t.

My understanding is that Al Qaeda barely existed, if at all, in Iraq until they invaded. Al Qaeda In Iraq, once it had gained a significant following that included many jobless Sunni ex-army occupation resistors, spawned ISIS in the detention camps that ex-Iraqi Army officers and Baathists were put into after Abu Ghraib, but they’re now separate organisations from each other, with slightly different aims. They’ve even been fighting each other in Syria. AQ-aligned groups keep moving in and out of alliances with the “moderate opposition” forces there.

Blair then took questions. No matter how his answers might be reported in print—on live tv they destroyed him. Although he said he took personal responsibility for the failures identified in the report, he blamed the UN. He blamed Saddam not complying with inspections.

He blamed the Iraqis. He blamed “external forces” connecting up with “internal forces” after they had destroyed everything —their military, their security forces, their bureaucracy, their political system, their infrastructure—& left a vacuum.

He blamed the Iranians. The Syrians.
It seemed to me that none of the reporters, whose questions were clearly heard, were buying it. He basically only apologised for not succeeding, for the fact that some of their soldiers had died—oh, and of course, for the fact that a lot of Iraqis had now died too.

He said he didn’t regret his decision to go to war because he still thought it was the right thing to do. He spoke of his “sorrow & regret” about the deaths that have resulted.

He said he would never accept criticism of the bravery and competence of the British forces in Basra. No one there had made any. It seems the report identifies some deal they made with insurgents to stop them firing on them.

He was asked several times why he had put in a letter to Bush that Britain would “follow you whatever” (or something along those lines—“whatever”, was stressed); whether the US had had too much influence on him personally; whether he had consulted Cabinet colleagues enough in making decisions on the war, and whether he would accept that had basically allowed himself to simply be led by the Bush administration. His answers were convoluted and unconvincing.

He said something about seeing some evidence that Saddam did in fact have plans to acquire or develop WMDs in the future, once the UN inspection heat & interntional scrutiny was off. (I can’t read my notes clearly—reporters might clarify that in their news reports.)

He said that the Middle East has always been unstable, and that if they hadn’t removed Saddam, the Arab Spring had shown that when the people rise to overthrow their dictators themselves, the result is chaos and sectarian killing. And that’s what would have eventually happened in Iraq. ??

(For those who don’t know, The Arab Spring is widely considered to have been a direct result of the removal of Saddam, which, according to many analysts I’ve read, is what prompted other peoples to rise & overthrow their repressive governments, spearheaded by their own Islamic fundamentalists. Which has in turn led to the strife now seen in places like Libya & Syria, and Egypt.

And, quite probably, the numerous other countries in North & Central Africa where Islamic extremists like Al Shabab and Boko Haram have sprung into vicious prominence and pledged allegiance to ISIS.)

Blair attempted, I think, to say that the Iraq invasion, and now the fighting against terrorism in the ME, has made the world a safer place. It was pretty muddy. He said he hadn’t lied to the British people.

The ramifications of the Chilcott report are going to be enormous.

Corbyn, in his speech to Parliament after Cameron’s, pointed out that he had spoken out vociferously against going to war. If I recall correctly, several of his MP colleagues supported it and he had thousands of supporters throughout Britain at that time, even after the decision was made to go to war, when people tend to get behind & back their military forces anyway.

This development could have a major impact on the current challenge to his leadership?