About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 29, 2011 8:42am by David Farrar

General Debate 29 January 2011

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment200

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (200)

Login to comment or vote

Johnboy

Is that the same Turks (much beloved by Grumpy) that slaughtered the Armenians and bummed Peter O’Toole almost to death? 🙂

If they are the conduit it better lead straight to the drain.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:18pm
Inventory2

# philu (9,487) Says:
January 28th, 2011 at 10:44 pm

and i work every day..from very early in the morning..

http://whoar.co.nz/ dosen’t do itself…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

I have to come to Auckland soon Phil. Can you tell me which library is open at 10.44pm on a Friday night, just in case I need something to read 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:20pm
bereal

Pete @ 3.26
i didn’t say Obama was a muslim, i just posed the question.
He certainly was born a muslim and brought up a muslim.
He transmorphogised himself and joined Reverend Wrights church in Chicago for
what some might say was to ingraciate himself with local blacks for
political/career reasons.

Let me guess, you would also be sure he was born a US citizen in Hawaii, right ?
it appears that specious claim has now been exposed. Are you aware that the state
governor of Hawaii, a staunch Obama supporter, declared he would publish Obamas
long form birth certificate to silence the ‘birther’ brigade.
After using the powers of his office to obtain a copy he had the integrity to declare
publicly on Thursday that it did not exist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:24pm
Pete George

bereal, I’m not going to get into the birther stuff yet again, it must be only you and one other poster here who believes in that.

Do you have any evidence he was brought up a Muslim?

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:33pm
philu

“..…its just a matter of time.

…Islamic/thought/doctrine …dictates that ‘it’ must be so…”

oo-err…!

it’s a scary old world for you..eh sbk…?

..furriners everywhere plotting to take yr life/world away…eh..?

look..!..over there…!

..is that them..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:38pm
Johnboy

You’ll be OK when they come Phool.

They won’t be able to stone you to death.

Their too late……eh….? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:47pm
Don the Kiwi

Philu must have sucked his first bong dry and started his second.

His writing style a few hours ago was almost coherent – now its retrograding to the old ways. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 4:59pm
jaba

now that I have heard that philU has outed himself as having an IQ north of 140, I feel the need to let you all know that my IQ in south of 150. I wonder if that makes me smarter than he is. The bonus for me is that if either of us has a poor sense of direction then I AM smarter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:07pm
philu

if you paid attention don..you wd see the earlier posts were enclosed in speech-marks…

..i know that some who comment here often leave them out..when quoting other writers..

..thus attempting to claim/infer the words are theirs…

..ew…!…eh..?

(you know who you are…and so do i..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:07pm
Johnboy

My huge IQ has always hung to the right (Northeast) I suspect that I have a much bigger IQ than either of you.

Even if I haven’t at least I hang to the right. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:13pm
Don the Kiwi

So Johnboy.

For you then, the ‘I’ in IQ doesn’t stand for intelligence?

If its big, then maybe your ‘I’ is “Inch” or “Inserter” – even “Impregnater” .
Even if it has fallen out of use. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:25pm
philu

if you had a active uterus jaba..

..we wd have a reasonable chance of making reasonably clever/literate nippers…

..just think..!

..eh…?

phil(whoar
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:26pm
Johnboy

Shit the Muslim Invasion is here.

Saheed Afridi makes the Blackcaps look like very average beach cricket amateurs. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:29pm
jaba

thanks philU
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:31pm
philu

but dosen’t yr big gut get in the way…?

j-boy..?

..do you have to lie on yr back…?

and all those years of knecking booze and dead animal fat is catching up..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:32pm
Johnboy

Rich pricks can afford all the Viagra they need to keep the needle pointing north DTK. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:32pm
jaba

Oram accidentally bowled a bean ball .. Brett Lee used to accidentally bowl them as well
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:33pm
Johnboy

McCullum has got him. Go the Scots. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:34pm
Johnboy

Just like you Phool I have always been able to lie in any position if it suits my argument at the time. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:37pm
philu

ew..!..old/fat guy clutching bottle of viagra…

..now that’s a turn-on…eh ladies..?..men…?

..how many rugby balls cd u fit in there..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:38pm
reid

I think a lot of the public’s thinking about the ME issue is skewed by ideology on both sides because all the politicians play it hard and not soft so the public does as well, those that are interested in it, that is. It’s surprising but almost uniquely as an international issue the Israel-vs-Arab issue has great polarity and comparatively little centrist thinking and much fewer centrist leaders than you find on just about any other issue.

It’s worrying to me the Islam-West issue is evolving the same way.

There are tremendous vested interests involved in first generating then propagating this antagonistic perspective because anything that builds paranoia requires defense and that’s always big money.

Strange how little the debate ever centres on those vested interests – who they could be, might be, almost certainly are; what they stand to gain; why they do it, how they do it, etc.

To me it’s extremely naive to imagine the dynamics we see today on these issues arose by pure chance, mere well-intentioned misadventures, when really we were all trying to achieve something else completely. I mean that’s just fucking stoopid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:38pm
philu

i’m getting a sugar-overload…

..from all the fucken smiley-faces..

a pox on them..!

..let yr words stand/speak alone..

..you don’t need to stick a fucken traffic-light there..

..telling us how to receive it…

..i loathe them almost as much as i loathe the effete comma…

..was there ever a more wimpy punctuation-mark..?

..’excuse me..can i just slip in there…you’ll hardly notice me’

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:43pm
DJP6-25

kow tow 11:32 got it in one.

cheers

David Prosser
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:45pm
Johnboy

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

“..’excuse me..can i just slip in there…you’ll hardly notice me’”

That the line you use on all your hirsute man/women friends Phool?

That’s the trouble with having a tiny IQ.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:48pm
bereal

Pete @ 4.33
i did check it out.
cant see why you would link to that wikipedia page to try and refute my
statement re Obama

It totally proved my point.

1967-1971 he was registered at school as a muslim. and…
the quote from Barry himself declares,’ I came to my Christian faith later in life.’

That was a good try at a bluff Pete but you have been called. You had nothing.
i wont add, ‘as usual’
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:50pm
joana

PG Evidence of Obama’s early muslim life in Indonesia…Agama classes…only muslims are allowed in Agama classes. If he is not a muslim now , he is an apostate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:51pm
bereal

Also Pete,
In your mind, what faith was Barry before he,’ came to his Christian faith
later in life.’

Buddist ? Jewish ? or, just maybe, Muslim ?

i dont really expect any further response from you.
Thanks for that joana
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:57pm
philu

ooh…!..the obama-is-a-scary-muslim crew are here…

round and round we go..eh..?

and..i was raised in a religion…where i no longer am..

..am i also an ‘apostate’..?

how thrilling…!

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 5:58pm
Pete George

No bereal, it didn’t prove your point. His early life in Indonesia is well known. As was his early Christian and Muslim connections.

There is no evidence he’s a Muslim. He’s a practising Christian. Is there a problem with someone coming to the Christian faith later in life?

Not that it should matter what religion (or not) that he is. Should it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:05pm
reid

phil if you support Obama then can I assume you support his bailout package?

Do you support Obama?

Not that it should matter what religion (or not) that he is.

No of course not Pete. For me, it’s the fact he’s an utterly hopeless POTUS and the US is at a critical juncture in her long history right now. I think his results are few and his rhetoric empty, from what I’ve seen so far.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:06pm
Johnboy

What religion where you Phool?

I was a Presbyterian, became Pagan.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:07pm
bereal

pete
unconditional love is a wonderfull thing.
just like you love Barry Obama.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:11pm
Johnboy

“On January 21, 2009, Chief Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath a second time to Barack Obama “out of an abundance of caution,” according to the White House, because, when the oath was administered to President Obama the first time, in the public inauguration ceremony, the word “faithfully” was misplaced. The second oath was administered in a simple, private ceremony in the Map Room of the White House.[17][26][27][28] Obama’s oath-retaking differed from all his predecessors’ in that the private ceremony happened after the public one.”

Dodgy stuff folks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:12pm
joana

Pete..you obviously do not understand islam…NOONE but NOONE leaves it . His father was muslim , therefore he was muslim…To other muslims , he is an apostate…In your world , people can change religions..in islam noone can leave islam..Read some sites live faithfreedominternational where you will find brave people rejecting the islam of their youth. In places as close to us as Malaysia , people are murdered for trying to leave islam.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:13pm
Johnboy

Hi Beryl. Sorry I was rude to you the other night.

I put it down to post 4000 coital stress syndrome.

If you had offered to cook me some eggs instead of congratulating me I wouldn’t have been so rude. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:15pm
Pete George

bereal, why do you assume that based on nothing? I’m not a fan of Obama, never have been, I just don’t buy in to all the conspiracy theories.

I don’t think he has lived up to (most people’s) expectations. He started with a very difficult job, two wars and a major recession, he hasn’t been all bad but he’s struggling to get to mediocre. He still has a couple of years to prove himself, but it will take a major turnaround to lift his level to reasonable.

Joana – you’re talking in absolutes, there are a lot of different opinions on that. Obama became a Christian (although he had a partial Christian upbringing as well).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:17pm
philu

re obama…

’tis a multi-faceted answer…

..i need to turn to my archives…

http://whoar.co.nz/?s=obama

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:17pm
reid

NOONE but NOONE leaves it … In places as close to us as Malaysia , people are murdered for trying to leave islam.

joana, what’s your solution to the “Muslim question?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:20pm
Manolo

P.G., I commend to you “Obama: The Culture of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin.

Your opinion of the Messiah is likely to change after reading that book, which offers an excellent analysis of Obama and his inner circle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:23pm
bereal

Barry Obama

already arguably, on any level,
the worst president EVER, and still more of his first and hopefully last term to go.

And not even an American.

Suck it up Pete.
Poor old Pete, youve taken a bit of a hiding this afternoon.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:25pm
reid

I commend to you “Obama: The Culture of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin.

Crikey, do you?

Really?

Crikey.

Pete I think Manolo hates your guts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:27pm
philu

nah..!… beryl..you’ve got another six yrs of obama…

..you had better learn to ‘suck it up’…

…eh..?

..phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:30pm
Pete George

I wouldn’t read that, I’ve never read a political book, whether it was pandering or a hit job.

And I wouldn’t trust Michelle Malkin – she was brought up a Catholic but deserted and became an Evangelical Christian – she can’t be a proper one, and the Pope will get her eventually.

Manolo – I’m just not that interested in Obama, especially not interested enough to read a book on him by someone who doesn’t like him, he’s of peripheral interest to me. bereal might be more interested – does it cover birthers and Muslers?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:36pm
Johnboy

You’ve probably got another six years of Paula Phool.

Suck that up…….eh?……… 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:37pm
Johnboy

What sort of books do you read Petey?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:38pm
Inventory2

Hey Phil; still waiting for you to tell me what library you post from at 10.44pm on a Friday night (see my question at 4.20pm). Or should we take your silence as confirmation that you are full of it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:39pm
bereal

Reid @6.20
Regarding solutions to the muslim problem.
One obvious one as far as our country is concerned is to cease any further muslim
immigration as of now.
Among other reasons is that unlike any other immigrants, muslims first allegiance is to their religion,
as opposed to their country.
This is why, for example Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi will go to Afganistan to fight for his muslim “brothers”

They can never truely integrate in any country as immigrants.

There are already over 40,000 muslims in New Zealand.
Cease immigration of muslims and begin programmes to try and really Kiwi ise the ones already here.
The basic tennents of their religion say that we are the infidels, we are to be hated
Their religion teaches them to lie that its fine with allah to lie to us for example.
WTF would we need them here ?
Where in the world have muslim immigrants integrated succesfully ?

Dearborn Michigan is held out in the USA as a good example but that really is a sick joke,
they actually have set up their own, country within a country.

i could go on about this but i realise i will not make many friends so ill leave it at that.

Johnboy, the penny just dropped, if i’m beryl,
no hard feelings darl.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 6:56pm
Inventory2

Anyone seen Phil?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:25pm
reid

unlike any other immigrants, muslims first allegiance is to their religion,
as opposed to their country

That’s a Jewish thing as well, so if it’s ok for them, and it is, isn’t it, then how come all of a sudden it isn’t ok for another religion to have exactly the same requirement and trait?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:25pm
Rodders

Inventory2 asks “Anyone seen Phil?”

Perhaps they close early on weekends ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:38pm
joana

Reid…it is not a question , it is an answer..unfortunately as I have probably said before..the answer is war….Not because non muslims want war but because islam itself is so totally war like. and its history is conquer by the sword..now of course they say things like ..we shall conquer you with the bellies of our women…which of course they are already doing in NZ. 8 to 1.
In short , I don’t have many answers..the current invasion of the west is a different type of invasion to the ones we read about in history books therefore the history books cannot guide us..We are facing a completely different threat.
Predictions about the current situation in the Middle East are for a war between the Muslims and the EU..Germany , over oil. Once the islamists are in power , they will control the Suez canal..The west , Britain has lost control of the seas..China has done and is still making sure its trade routes are secure..What is the west without oil??..Anyhow that prediction is not mine..My own one is that Mubarak will be assassinated..it is on the cards..Tunisia , Egypt …and the rest…then one big islamic state.
Some days Reid, I think of telling my son whatever you do , do not have children…Europeans having been telling their children this for years…The people are very , very frightened. Pray if you believe in any kind of God..I think recent history tells us the situations can change very quickly…In the UK from the earliest big influxes of muslims to obvious serious trouble , it took about thirty years..so expect the same here. We will have gang rapes , grooming of young white girls , honour killings , mosques sprouting up everywhere in about twenty years time. We already have child and forced marriages…As far as I know no one in NZ has been charged or imprisoned yet these people brazenly flout our laws…
The diffulty for all western people who are awake to the threat , is the head in the sand attitudes of our governments.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:41pm
joana

PG Islam is all about absolutes…They would never have time for a hair splitter like yourself..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:43pm
philu

“..You’ve probably got another six years of Paula Phool…”

nah..!..you wait ’till those post-privatisation polls start rolling out….

the snapping shut sound we will all hear….will be yr rightwing sphincters…

..as the realisation dawns that one-term-john it will be….

..but more importantly..that this govt is the death-rattle of that whole 80’s lets make the rich richer experiment thing…

…we will be heading in a different direction…

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:49pm
Johnboy

Joana. Never a truer word said.

This is the full text of Enoch Powell’s so-called ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:52pm
philu

yawn..!

(enoch powell..?..snigger..!…)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:55pm
Hurf Durf

The Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, long ago became just another mainstream opposition party. Democratically elected Islamic parties, including Hamas, elsewhere, should be welcomed with open arms.

Yes, because I completely trust the word of an avowed anti-Western agent like Puke Hansen.

These “revolutions” require careful management so that half-decent reformers and liberals take power and not abject nutcases like in France, Russia and Iran.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:58pm
bhudson

joana,

Interesting view on the (final?) solution to the Islam ‘problem’.

Just for clarification, are you the same joana who commented on KB recently that Kyle Chapman is a great guy and just misunderstood?…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 7:58pm
Johnboy

Of course if you look at it from the other point of view some grumpy old hori may have made a similar sort of speech a hundred and fifty years ago in good old Aotearoa. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:01pm
Don the Kiwi

joanna.

In answer to your wondering about who will save us from the muslims?

The same outfit that has saved Western civilisation from Islam four times in the past 1400 years.

Three guesses as to who/what that was?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:03pm
philu

“..The people are very , very frightened. ..”

joana…

that’d be yr swollen amadygala playing/acting up…

..yr ‘fear-centre’…

..it’s a medical deformity that you’ve got…

that makes you so full of fear…

..eh…?

http://whoar.co.nz/?s=cingulate

and..did you say that about chapman…?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:09pm
Rodders

bhudson asked “Just for clarification, are you the same joana who commented on KB recently that Kyle Chapman is a great guy and just misunderstood”

Looks like it – http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/01/a_flyer_in_christchurch.html#comment-783843

She also made a bizarre comment about the PM’s eyes a few months back. Perhaps her comments are merely a tease?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:15pm
Inventory2

Hey; the library’s open tonight!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:23pm
philu

gee joana…

you are sicker than i originally thought…

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:24pm
Johnboy

Anyone who is sicker than your original thoughts Phool is in a very bad way indeed. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:27pm
reid

Joana I see you’re an optimist not a pessimist and that’s good.

What’s interesting about Islam is a lot of people are behaving toward them today in exactly the same way a previous generation did toward the USSR during the Cold War.

Of course the mistaken conclusions those people were operating under during the Cold War with respect to the USSR’s motivations, now proven by history to be complete bullocks and yet were widely believed, couldn’t happen again, could it. History couldn’t repeat, could it. Cause that only happens when you forget it, doesn’t it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:31pm
bereal

Inventory 2 @ 7.25
Anybody seen phil ?
i was wondering the same thing. Maybe he scored some primo hydroponic buds,
pigged out and went to sleep, but no, @ 7.49 up he pops again.
i thought he could be worn out, the poor dear, after his efforts yesterday.

Check out the general discussion. 28. 1. 11
of 201 contributions over 20% were from one genius alone, philu
measuring it by column centimeters, this self proclaimed genius produced over 30%
of the total comments yesterday, single handed.
Surely a prodigious effort. philu hasnt quite kept it up today, but hey, even a genius would
find it hard to keep up that interesting, witty, thoughtfull and insightfull commentary.
But he will be trying (get it)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:33pm
Johnboy

“philu hasnt quite kept it up today”

Possibly because he mocks the use of Viagra Beryl.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:36pm
Hurf Durf

the mistaken conclusions those people were operating under during the Cold War with respect to the USSR’s motivations, now proven by history to be complete bullocks and yet were widely believed,

The Polish-Soviet War should have given everyone the fullest understanding of the USSR’s motivations.

Of course, by the time they had the power and opportunity to act on them we had Mutually Assured Destruction to keep them at bay and then economic and political stagnation to take them out forever.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf, especially in the case of an Islamist group like the MB (the same group which killed Mubarak’s predecessor, might I add!).

Optimists do so make me laugh.

Check out the general discussion. 28. 1. 11
of 201 contributions over 20% were from one genius alone, philu
measuring it by column centimeters, this self proclaimed genius produced over 30%
of the total comments yesterday, single handed.

That’s our Philip. A lot of hopped up stupidity he can’t contain to less than two consecutive posts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:36pm
Johnboy

Interesting point reid but I suspect that a bogey man is required to keep us all on our toes otherwise our minds might be distracted to other things like. “Why do we all seem to have to work so hard only to be told by our masters that we are not doing as well as we should be.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:41pm
bereal

Reid @ 7.25 and 8.31
Its surprising, but with those two comments you have revealed that you
really just dont get it, or refuse to get it for some reason with regard to islam.
comparing it with the soviet union, with respect, is ridiculous.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:47pm
Johnboy

The moron Oram has just managed to do what he does best and run out McCullum.

What a useless prick.

We are fucked.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 8:51pm
reid

the mistaken conclusions those people were operating under during the Cold War with respect to the USSR’s motivations, now proven by history to be complete bullocks and yet were widely believed,

The mistaken conclusion being that the West thought the Soviets were aggressive and didn’t realise the truth which was the Soviets thought it was the West who were the aggressors. This was true since Stalin’s death, and it wasn’t picked up on, till Gorbachev.

It’s part of history, that’s what happened. We misinterpreted them, big-time. I think it’s happening again. That’s my point.

a bogey man is required to keep us all on our toes otherwise our minds might be distracted to other things

Exactly Johnboy. My problem is, why can’t they make the distractions more like an exciting Bond movie where an evil villain of a Muslim is just about to blow up the world lest the motorcade being telecast live pull over immediately and dispel “the principal.”

You know what I mean. If they really have to do it to us in the first place, then why must they make it so ho freakin hum. Fuck they’re bastards.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:01pm
Johnboy

They are not as big a pack of useless bastards as the Blackcaps are though reid. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:04pm
Hurf Durf

The mistaken conclusion being that the West thought the Soviets were aggressive

Right, OK, totally mistaken. It was all just a total hallucination – the push into Eastern Europe by the Soviets in 1921 (which was only halted by the brave Poles, to whom we owe a great debt), the gradual usurption of newly-liberated countries of Western and liberal elements by stealth and force and their replacement with Communist hardliners and the invasion of South Korea by Kim Il-Sung where anti-Communists, moderates and all the others were politely argued to death by commissars – all with Stalin’s approval and involvement. All a massive misunderstanding by the West during the formative years of the Cold War. Silly billies!

Course, it was only Stalin though. Khrushchev was a much nicer guy. He only put used Castro as the dumb pawn he is and put IRBMs on Cuba, then funded Allende into being another dumb pawn in Chile (only just stopped that one, too). And then there was Brezhnev who stamped out reform in Czechoslovakia. All the others up to Gorbachev never lived long enough to put their particular mark on Soviet expansionism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:11pm
reid

Yes perhaps they should take some viagra as well Johnboy. Possibly you can play better when you’re fully alert, as it were. It certainly couldn’t hurt, could it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:17pm
reid

No Hurf it’s well established paranoid misunderstandings at the highest scientific, political, intelligence and military levels on both sides let to a complete misconception of the other side’s motivations.

If you don’t understand that about the Cold War, you understand nothing. The fact this happened, for decades, not so long ago, where millions upon millions were completely duped into a false perception, should be a concern to anyone who thinks and who can see what’s happening today with the Islam dynamic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:20pm
Hurf Durf

it’s well established paranoid misunderstandings at the highest scientific, political, intelligence and military levels on both sides let to a complete misconception of the other side’s motivations.

If by that you mean Stalin’s unjustified paranoia and justified Western concerns of a totalitarian, revolutionary state with a history of aggression expanding its sphere of influence in Europe and Asia then yeah, you’re totally right.

You can talk about “false perceptions” as much as you want. On this issue, you’re as bad as Puke.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:26pm
joana

Hudson..”the final solution to the islam problem.”..Your words , not mine…I am not looking for any solution and I never said islam was a problem..It is a reality, if you are interested in dealing with reality..also I never said Kyle was misunderstood. If you are going to quote people , quote them..don’t try to make out that they said things they didn’t. Lawyers would make a bomb out of you.
Rodders..Do you always describe concepts you have never heard of as bizarre? Why no questioning mind? The concept I described on that occasion is very , very well known to millions of Japanese people.
Any bets on Mubarak?? five days , two days , three weeks..shot by a loyal guard? beheaded?? any other suggestions?? Poison perhaps??
Reid…I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist…I am a realist…I already told looking back in history wouldn’t give you any answers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:30pm
reid

You can talk about “false perceptions” as much as you want. On this issue, you’re as bad as Puke.

Fucking d’oh Hurf. Read what I’ve said above.

Firstly, I’ve said these conditions of misconception applied only after Stalin died. Stalin was a threat. After that, it was standard Russian psychology of buffer state defense which Russian history is steeped in. It kicked in, and that’s what happened after 1953 when Stalin died.

The West’s perception of the USSR didn’t change then, but that’s when the USSR changed.

My point is, the Russians after 1953 were defensive not aggressive in mentality and took action accordingly to defend itself but not to attack and this is history, you can’t deny it, it did happen and it was misperception at the highest levels which also spread throughout all layers and aspects of society and it was all based on a fallacy. The Reds were quite happy to sit in Moscow. That’s what the history says Hurf. Yes I know in say 1956 and 1968 they weren’t “sitting in Moscow” duh. They were defending their buffer then Hurf, which is what you do when you’re in defense mode which they were.

Note that Hurf, they were not in attack mode, they were in defense mode.

That’s history Hurf. Undeniable I’m afraid.

And the whole point is: history repeats itself, only when we forget it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:36pm
kowtow

johnboy

Enoch Powell was a great Englishman. The following story shows ,as if needed,how right he was.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351537/The-10-families-costing-1m-state-handouts.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:45pm
philu

here is joanas actual quote:..

..”…joana (389) Says:
January 12th, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Kyle is a good guy…”

say no more…eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:46pm
reid

I already told looking back in history wouldn’t give you any answers.

Sorry Joana I missed that bit of your wisdom. Really? I see.

While it’s true a healthy person stands in the present looking forward I think forgetting all about the past and not re-examining it to identify truth from perception and how things went wrong would be a little bit of a backward step for humanity but if that’s your practice far be it from me to criticise.

So do you think the Muslim scare of the noughties compares at all to the Red scare of the 40’s? Different time and place isn’t it but in terms of the general paranoia that history reveals was subsequently engendered, you see any parallels? Oh right, sorry, forgot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:47pm
Hurf Durf

The only thing you are doing is reinforcing my argument. It’s still the same bollocks, paranoid, groupthink leadership in the mould of Lenin and Stalin after 1953, even with the platitudes of breaking with Stalin’s regime – still the same KGB, still the same thuggery, still the same economic planning. Nothing changed in the USSR mentality after 1953 – indeed, in 1979 it looked as though it was the West in defence and retreat and the USSR on the rise. Its collapse in 1989 onwards came as a total surprise to everyone. “The Reds were quite happy to sit in Moscow” only if there was no opportunity with which to expand its ideological and rational self-interest. If it was defending “itself” either overtly or covertly, what it was doing was consolidating the expansionist projects it had been developing – Czechoslovakia, Poland, Korea, Cuba, Chile, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the list goes on.

I should also note that the Soviets spent more money funding Western “peace” groups than they did on the Viet Cong. Was that defensive? Read up on the Mitrokhin Archives? Were they defensive? The Soviets had the expansionist mentality all the way up to the final nail being hammered in.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:48pm
philu

enoch powell was a racist scumbag…

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 9:49pm
kowtow

Don’t forget proxy wars in Mozambique and Angola.

The Czechs sold their semtex to the IRA to kill citizens of the UK .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:11pm
reid

Nothing changed in the USSR mentality after 1953 – indeed, in 1979 it looked as though it was the West in defence and retreat and the USSR on the rise.

Sigh.

Stalin is in a very unique category of entities which have lived on this planet and that is the same category as people like Vlad the Impaler, Ghenghis Khan, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Peter the Great and a thousand other people who were directly responsible for massive upheaval and death. He wasn’t a revolutionary he was a conquerer. The USSR leadership by contrast were in fact of the human race and by definition completely different from people I’ve just mentioned. They were therefore subject to the same strictures, genetic, cultural and others which didn’t bound the man who’d put the entire structure together. They operated the power levers to keep them in power domestically like all selfish people would in their position, but in terms of international aggression, what did they do?

Cuba?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:12pm
reid

enoch powell was a racist scumbag…

What do you think about the proposition that everyone is racist, phil?

That at the end of the day it’s simply not possible to step outside your own skin because that’s just who you are?

Is Hone a racist when he calls us “white mother******s?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:18pm
Hurf Durf

Stalin was not a superhuman. He was certainly more ruthless and ambitious, yes, but the core principles and policies remained in place after his death. His paranoia defined the Soviet political leadership.

but in terms of international aggression, what did they do?

Cuba?

Did you just completely ignore my post?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:21pm
reid

“Did you just completely ignore my post?”

No I’m serious. Cuba was a defensive action in response to the US placing missiles into Turkey that dissipated the instant that issue was resolved. [4:40 into this clip]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:48pm
Hurf Durf

Derp. The missiles placed in Turkey were a guarantee against Soviet expansionism in the 1960s. Heard of that? Mutually assured destruction? The CMC also helped secure Castro as the Soviet’s premier pawn in South America where it could launch all sorts of covert expansionist activity in the region and around the world.

You can cling onto the “USSR was a poor, abused puppy post-1953” perspective if you want. I just wanted you to know that it’s bollocks. Totalitarian, revolutionary ideologies like Fascism, Communism and Islamism don’t change their spots.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 10:58pm
reid

Derp. I’m not saying there weren’t actions, re-actions, counter-reactions, et al.

I’m saying it was all based on a mutual fundamental mis-understanding and if anyone still blames the entire Cold War upon the aggression of only one side they display profound and utter ignorance.

The main point is of course the very same dynamic is right now again rearing its early and particularly ugly head. At the moment its still a baby and we can kill it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 11:02pm
Hurf Durf

I’m actually blaming it on Stalin’s paranoia and the justified Western pessimism of a placated USSR post-Stalin’s death. You know, if you wanted to take a position whereby you wanted to prevent the pre-emptive neutralisation of Islamism (definition: radical, extremist political Islam on the model of Iran and Hezbollah) by overt or covert means before it got any more bigger, you should just scream “TEH NEOCONS!” rather than trying to make crap historical comparisons. I have no intention of “co-existing” with that malignant tumour.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 11:08pm
reid

I’m actually blaming it on Stalin’s paranoia

How does that factor apply post his death in 1953?

if you wanted to take a position whereby you wanted to prevent the pre-emptive neutralisation of Islamism (definition: radical, extremist political Islam on the model of Iran and Hezbollah)

Hurf I’ve been taking precisely that position for quite a long time. Crikey.

Of course I want sharia law. Of course I want stonings and all of that. What are ya? Who wouldn’t? Not.

To clarify, I actually don’t want that.

I just don’t think conflating Muslims with terrorists is accurate yet that’s what’s happening.

Subtly and slowly this is precisely what’s happening and it’s not correct and anyone can see that. Yet it keeps happening and you know the interesting thing is that it’s become a matter of patriotism too, integrally. That’s always a worry, if you’re one of those people who doesn’t like wars.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 11:19pm
Hurf Durf

How does that factor apply post his death in 1953?

In countries with totalitarian leaders, the leader’s personality defines the political culture. In the Third Reich, Hitler’s hate was a significant part of the political culture. The Germans spent decades hammering it out when the TR was removed. In Soviet Russia, it was Stalin’s paranoia. He was such a massive, domineering figure that his death nowhere near removed the culture he left behind.

Hurf I’ve been taking precisely that position for quite a long time. Crikey.

Oh, OK. That’s refreshing. Usually with the anti-imperialist/appeasement/solidarity crowd there’s a lot of ignoring the worst excesses of Islamism whilst refusing to accept the difference between normal Muslims with aspirations of freedom and prosperity and the fuckjob Islamists who want to manipulate that and control all, and if anyone attempts to do so Western dumbasses in league with them scream racism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a significant chunk of the leftard MFM who seek to erase that distinction in the public mind.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2011 11:31pm
reid

In countries with totalitarian leaders, the leader’s personality defines the political culture.

And what happens after that person dies Hurf?

Does their legacy live on and on and on and on or do the living people actually put a teeny weeny bit of their own imprint on it here and there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 12:12am
Hurf Durf

When you consider the fact his successor was a Stalin protege and his successor was a more hardline version of the previous guy, not much. Was or was not political stagnation a part of the collapse of the Soviet Union?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 1:17am
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Could New Zealand do an Egypt?

Angry crowds of New Zealanders start to gather around the state television station to demand a change of Government. There are wide scale complains aboout the fall in people’s standard of living and the rise of prices of the most basic of every day goods.

John Key calls an emergency press conference where he accepts that reforms are needed and sacks his cabinet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 1:59am
Pete George

Could New Zealand do an Egypt?

It could happen in any country, but the chances of it happening here are very small. Why would it? There is a lot of griping and grizzling about petty stuff but apart from a couple of posters here (and there are smatterings in the Standard too) there is nothing to suggest widespread dissatisfaction with our government. New Zealand is nothing like Egypt, or Tunisia.

the fall in people’s standard of living

Yeah, right. A few wee wobbles in the economy, and minor fluctuations in people’s employment and financial fortunes are not revolution makers. On average our standard of living is the best it’s ever been. Food prices climb a bit but there is far greater range than ever, far more fast food outlets, cafes and restaurants than a couple of decades ago, clothes have never been cheaper relative to earnings, same for consumer goods, electronics and probably cars.

While always “not enough for enough people” health care is the best ever and life expectancy keeps climbing, despite people eating themselves to higher risk.

Housing is certainly expensive, but the average house is far bigger per person and better equipped than ever.

Relatively we have very low levels of national and lovcal government corruption, we have a democracy that actually functions very well – everyone can’t have their party of choice in power all the time.

We are the most fortunate generations ever across just about all socioeconomic groups, in one of the best countries you could hope to live in (ignoring the moaners and pessimists). A few people froth at the mouth over relatively ridiculous trivia.

New Zealand is one of the least likely countries in the world for revolution. Why the heck would we have one?

Are we going to let ourselves get overwhelmed by frivolous hissy fits?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 7:33am
Manolo

I dare to suggest letting them loose among the local scum. It can only benefit taxpayers from both countries:

Turf wars could follow as the Rebels seek to build their presence.

The establishment of a branch of the Australia Rebels in New Zealand could involve fights over territory with rivals says expert. Rival gangs could be drawn into turf wars as the Australia Rebels seek to gain a foothold in New Zealand.

The Rebels Motorcycle Club is moving in on the Tribesmen and Canterbury University gang researcher, Jarrod Gilbert, says there’s probably little authorities can do to stop them. “There maybe some territorial conflict if the rebels choose to expand quickly, as they did in Australia and step on other gangs’ toes.”

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=189873
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 7:57am
Manolo

John Key calls an emergency press conference where he accepts that reforms are needed and sacks his cabinet.

No, that could not be said of our smile-and-wave Prime Minister. It requires a pair of testicles, in the first place.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 30, 2011 8:00am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« SIS failed with Wilce clearance

Easton on partial sales »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

My Submission On The Treaty Principles Bill
Utopia
The Power of Big Ice Cream
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The Infamous TDB Political Awards 2024
The Daily Blog
Open mike 22/12/2024
The Standard
"... a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics."
Not PC
Fast-track Approvals Bill passes but Te P?ti M?ori threatens applicants
Point of Order
2024 OIA stats
No Right Turn
SHALLOW THINKING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Jacinda’s “Act” of kindness has increased abortions 23%
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
About Syria.
Kiwipolitico
Supreme Court Activism
NZCPR
Orr on Q&A – Part II
Croaking Cassandra
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 8
Stats Chat
Misuse of land use planning
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d