This is C. S. Lewis writing in 1943 about “legalising” divorce. Although written nearly 70 years ago on the topic of divorce, I think Lewis’s points apply just as well to gay nuptial arrangements in the 21st century.
I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.
[Reprised from SOLO, March 2008. Does calling a civil union a gay marriage make it a marriage?!]
The gut notion of objectivity is captured in an anecdote from the life of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and a political colleague were discussing how to get a policy across and the colleague suggested labelling the policy in a certain way; they happened to be near a donkey and their dialogue went like this:
‘Sir, how many legs does this donkey have?’
‘Four, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘And how many tails has it?’
‘Why, just one, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘Tell me, sir, what if we were to call the tail a leg; how many legs would the donkey then have?’
‘Five, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘No, sir; for you cannot make a tail into a leg by calling it one.’
What a joke The ‘Renaissance in Maori culture and treaty settlement process is! All the Billions of dollars and assets of the so-called ‘Maori economy’ are enjoyed by the Aristocracy while the average Maori tribesman are just the miserable chumps wallowing in racism , dependence, and poverty!
According to the NZ Herald despite all the Political favoritism and Nannyism, The Income Gap between Maori and Pakeha continues to widen.
Yet what would you expect?
Learning TeReo Maori, and doing The Haka don’t have any economic value Homie!
The whole ‘Treaty partnership’ is a massive joke at the expense of all New Zealanders esp the foolish Maori whom are being deceived by the Political Class shyster Maori Lawyers and Elite into supporting the Separatist movement.
When will you understand that the only people oppressing you are your own leaders who fill your heads with race hatred and ensnare you in a victim mentality?
The average Maori would be much better off keeping their cultural interests as private pleasure, forsaking all the Race hatred and ‘blame’ that the separatists cultivate, and instead encourage their children to stand on their own two feet as individuals and take responciblity for their own well being… stressing the importance of the study English, Math, Engineering, etc.
Then watch a liberated Modern Maori make their escape from the Racist lies and delusions and compete as equals in the world.
This is how Moari must seek to improve their Economic lot (and escape the ethical poverty which sees them filling Jails, hospitals, and morgues).
By Hard work and self reliance. Socialism is a scam! A Trap. A complete failure!
Important note: I am not saying Maori people ought to completely forsake their culture. I am saying the Bogus Political Agenda, racial separatism, and its fabrication of a false Renaissance has led Maori down a very dark and deluded path.
And that they must stop following their Evil racist leaders who pretend to have the ordinary Maori’s best interests at heart when in reality they only give a damn about themselves.
In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a “party line.” Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases—bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder—one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying … And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.
The present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and … one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:
What am I trying to say?
What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
And he will probably ask himself two more:
Could I put it more shortly?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you—even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent—and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright,
I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.
Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find—this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify—that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.
Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier—even quicker, once you have the habit—to say
In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that
than to say
I think.
If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry—when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech—it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style.
This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.
I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. … There is a long list of flyblown metaphors which could … be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible … to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable.
If you’ve read this far, then you’re probably chomping at the bit to start applying Orwell’s rules for writing—and thinking!—in clear, fresh, plain language.
Here are a couple of sentences from a well-known political writer.
Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of converting abstractions into concretes, or, more precisely, into the psycho-epistemological equivalent of concretes, into a manageable number of specific units.
Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to reverse engineer them into plain English.
READ THE SUBTITLE!
Darwin’s Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for Life.
And People try and say Hitler was a Christian!
He Got his Ideas about ‘the Master Race’, Eugenics, and ‘Sub Humans’ directly from Darwins ‘Scientific’ textbook. The Final solution was the Philosophy of Darwinian Evolution *in Practice*… for the preservation of the ‘favoured’ race… in the struggle for Life!
Bertrand Russell wrote on the Subject of Darwin and Eugenics before Hitler rose to Power.
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)
Now Racism has indeed been a perpetual plaugue upon mankind, yet Biblical Christianity has never supported the idea Of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ races. It clearly taught that All Mankind are one Family decended from Adam and Eve.
St Paul declared God… ” hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26.)
And also that ” As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:… For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans chapter 3)… thus both physically and Spiritually there is no distinction between the races.
What more The Christian Gospel declares Gods love and concern for All individual human beings and that He Sent St Paul to preach the gospel of grace and to declare… “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10vs 13)
Salvation being the gift of God (Eph2vs7,8) All believers were to be united in love for one another and in fellowship. They were instructed to forsake any notions of Racism they may have held as heathens because … “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
*These teachings are the very opposite of Nazi doctrine*
One of the Great Blessings of Humanitarianism, Liberty, and enlightenment that arose out of the Reformation and the Publication of the King James Bible was a great religious awakening in the doctrines of St Paul… and it was in this great movement of the spirit of charity and humanity which brought about the Anti slavery movements in Brittan and America. The Christian Protestant realising that Negroe Slavery was against the Spirit of Christ, and that Negroes had Full Rights and dignity as Human beings in God’s eyes, and that they were in fact ‘Family’.
The Negroes in Western civilization ought to be grateful for that period of Christian awakening… it came in the nick of time because had Darwin’s ideas of race had been developed one hundred years earlier they would never have been liberated!
The truth is that Darwinism was responsible for ending this period of enlightenment and humanity!
It is also easy to perceive the roll it has played ever since… in Racial conflict and inhumanity.
The records of 20th century Atheist Socialism are the Bloodiest in the whole of human history!
Not only was the Holocaust against the Jew the implementation of Social Darwinism, likewise was Himmler’s ambitions to create ‘a master race’…. Read…. Historic Photos Show The Third Reich’s Evil Attempt To Create A “Master Race”
How is it that today millions of people foolishly believe that Darwinism saved mankind from evil religious values? How can the be so ignorant as to not understand that Darwinism was responsible for all of the Nazi doctrines and ambitions for world domination?
How is it that the dark secrets of Darwinian Philosophy in action have been hidden from the masses?
How many people who worship Darwin today even know what the Racist subtitle to his book is?
How is it that in the light of what Darwinism has achieved that Pretentious Bastards like Richard Dawkins Dare to hold up Darwin like a Saint, and condemn Christianity and their God for their barbarity?
And why … for goodness sakes would so many Christian concur with the vile rantings of such False teachers… and forsake the teachings of the Bible… which are both scientifically accurate and morally pure , and embrace this de humanizing philosophy which renders mankind down to an Ape… nay down to a colony of germs?
Evolution is one Great Big Fat Dirty Lie!
Satan Laughing spreads his wings
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Darwin, like many evolutionists, believed that some hominids developed larger brains faster, leaving others behind. The most advanced species (in the evolutionist’s evolved brain at least) was a 19th-century European gentleman who was supposedly far more evolved than an Australian Aborigine. This revolutionary, evolutionary idea added fuel to racist thinking and vice versa.
Quotes from Darwins Body Snatchers
“Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand, to try to prove that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved ‘savage’ ones.”
“Good prices were being offered for such specimens. There is no doubt from written evidence that many of the ‘fresh’ specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people. The way in which the requests for specimens were announced was often a poorly disguised invitation to do just that. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.”
Update. 23-7-12. A friend posted me an interesting link on facebook.
It says Darwin’s first hand experience of South American slavery appalled him, yet as the following Quotes show Darwin’s cold ‘scientific’ rationale… and that he formulated his Evolutionary theory purposefully to accommodate and even vindicate Slavery… as Natural to the survival of ‘the strong’… and trump any contrary Conscience…
Darwin made comments upon Observation of the behavior of Ants…
“I loiter for hours in the Park & amuse myself by watching the Ants: I have great hopes I have found the rare Slave-making species & have sent a specimen to Brit. Mus. to know whether it is so.”9,10
“I had such a piece of luck at Moor Park: I found the rare Slave-making Ant, & saw the little black niggers in their master’s nests.”11
“I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making ant; for I could not help rather doubting the wonderful stories, but I have now seen a marauding party, & I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are house & not field niggers) in their mouths”12
In his Origin of Species, Darwin devotes several pages to what he called the “slave-making instinct”.13 He refers to the ant species Formica (Polyerges) rufescens (of Switzerland that he had read about)14 and Formica sanguinea (the one he observed in southern England), both of which make slaves of the ant species F. fusca. Darwin begins by “doubting the truth of so extraordinary and odious an instinct as that of making slaves” (p. 220). Then after giving his own observations he says: “Such are the facts … in regard to the wonderful instinct of making slaves” (p. 223).
Darwin then suggests that
“the habit of collecting pupae15 for food might by natural selection be strengthened and rendered permanent for the very different purpose of raising slaves. When the instinct was once acquired … I can see no difficulty in natural selection increasing and modifying the instinct—always supposing each modification to be of use to the species—until an ant was formed as abjectly dependent on its slaves as is the Formica rufescens.” (p. 224). “ … it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as … ants making slaves … not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die” (pp. 243–244).
“Bennett & English begin promoting next round of welfare changes – this time, it’s drug testing of beneficiaries. No thought appears to be given to lack of adequate A & D services, consequences to personal & family health & well being if you have no income, & downstream medical, police, court, prison & other costs. All aimed at appealing to beneficiary bashing vote, again, sadly.”
If you choose to take drugs, then get done when they stay in your system, any resulting consequences are of your own doing – so deal with them like a mature adult. It’s called taking personal responsibility. How hard is this to understand?
My response? Sue Bradford is right, for once. Here’s a post from my old blog that explains why.
[Reprised from beNZylpiperazine, August 2007. Five years later, National has picked up where Labour left off and nothing much has changed.]
What is it with right-wingers and their fetish for trained circus seals?
Popular among right-wingers is the following proposed solution to the problem of welfare abuse: make welfare beneficiaries jump through hoops. Exactly which hoops it’s thought welfare beneficiaries should jump through depends on the right-winger making the proposal. What particularly irks me is the suggestion put forward here.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them??
Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking piss & smoking dope all day.
Surely, paying people to sit on their arses drinking piss and smoking dope all day is one of the better uses of government money. But I digress. There is an obvious problem with the proposal. If you make passing a urine test a condition of eligibility for the dole, this will have the unintended consequence of inducing people to apply for the sickness benefit as alcoholics or drug addicts, where failing a urine test is a condition of eligibility.
The truth is, there is only one solution to the problem of welfare abuse – remove the state entirely from the provision of welfare and devolve that responsibility to voluntary charities and private insurance companies – and only one political party advocating this solution – Libertarianz. Here are a couple of ideas which may (or may not) be part of the soon-to-be-announced Libertarianz transitional social welfare policy.
First, stop treating “alcoholism” and “drug addiction” as afflictions which qualify the afflicted for the sickness benefit. Drug addiction is a lifestyle choice, not a disease.
Second, put a six month time limit on the unemployment benefit. I don’t mean that beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole after they’ve been on it six months. I mean that all unemployment beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole six months after the policy is implemented. So, if the policy were to be implemented tomorrow, the unemployment benefit would be off the WINZ menu come February next year. Six months should be ample time to find a job. Perhaps some right-wingers might offer employment opportunities for professional trained circus seals.
While most Kiwis concern themselves with the state of the Economy, there is another issue of even greater magnitude being foisted up us… the preparations for a New Republican Constitution for New Zealand.
This process is being carried out in stealth, ie there is no public debate going on, but rather a collection of ‘Hui’ which are dominated by Socialists, Greens, and Racial separatists who have hijacked this project and are setting about to manipulate public opinion into accepting a corrupt constitution which enshrines Racial separatism and pseudo-legitimises totalitarian powers to Parliament.
I am currently attempting to rally a lobby group to oppose this skulduggery and to propose an alternative Constitution based upon Equality before the Law and Limited Government, which includes a Bill of Rights which must be respected by Parliament.
I have so far had no success.
One of my associates, One New Zealand Foundation’s Ross Baker shares my alarm that the separatists have Hijacked the process for establishing a New Constitution, and is concerned that the fact that John Key’s National Government has accepted the UN Declaration on Indigenous rights means it will be used as leverage by the Separatists to enshrine a separatist Constitution. He is also concerned about the lack of any organised opposition.
We intend to put up a fight!
Yet currently we are so few in number that we fear we have little hope of getting our side of the Debate herd, let alone be successful in halting the ambitions of the Racist Socialists.
Below is an Opinion piece I wrote at the time John ‘Quisling’ Key endorsed the Racist/ Anti- Enlightenment Document… The UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights. The danger I forewarn is now upon us.
This Declaration is about to be used in the most diabolical way. To enshrine an apartheid constitution.
This can only bring Greater evils and injustices upon us.
It will perpetuate the Extortion Racket that syphons millions of dollars into the hands of vile racists.
It will further entrench Maori in the mentality of victimism and the poverty of Socialist dependence.
I post it here today in the hope of stimulating interest in this ‘Mother of all Political struggles’ we currently face… To sound the Alarm… The Barbarians are at our gates! Prepare for Battle or be slaughtered, and your children enslaved.
Article/ Opinion piece… Quisling John Key sells out New Zealand to UN Socialist racism.
By Tim Wikiriwhi Libertarian Independent Hamilton West.
Recent dire events lead me to write this article asking how is it possible that earth shattering truths can explode in the face of a so-called educated people without causing so much as a tiny ripple of contemplation their consciences, yet at other times these same nation of scholars are provoked into a lynch mob frenzy at the drop of a hat? Machiavelli would say “tis elementary”… for the Prince skilled in statecraft.
I however conclude no such Diabolical genius is necessary!
*Mass Deception is easily achievable via corrupting the peoples education*… and thus over time manipulate their grip on reality.
* Furthermore I say New Zealand clearly has been so manipulated*… by mediocre liars who have been furnished with just such socialist political engines of condition and have propagated a nation of thoroughly ‘educated’ Ignorami!
Why am I pouring scorn upon my countrymen?
Let me explain.
Via John Key, New Zealand has just endorsed the UN separatist declaration of Indigenous rights which is contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of justice which say our rights must be equal before the Law.
It pains me to think thousands of Kiwis voted for the Quisling John Key and his band of sycophants calling themselves the National Party!
That these Toe rags managed to convince anyone to vote for them is more than a badge of stupidity, it is fast proving to be a fatal error, yet most Kiwi are too ‘educated’ to grasp what this Quisling has achieved in his short stint at the top Job, and most of those who are ‘in the know’ belong to a club of shyster lawyers, racists, stooges, and power hungry Politicains now wringing their hands with glee at the thought of how to enrich themselves with filthy lucre…. thanks to the utter imbecile running our country.
I say John Key must rank as one of the worlds greatest two faced idiots in power today along side the President of Iran and Hugo Chavez, and ultimately is just as dangerous…just as disastrous.
Sitting at my computer, I could not express how grievous has been the collaboration of John Key with the radical racist separatists of the Maori Party, without venting this tirade you are reading.
As a Hamiltonian I wonder where are the voices of protest from our elected representatives Tim Macendoe and David Bennet?
Their silence betrays their complicity!
They have no spine… No independent conscience… They are loyal little minions.
John Key is no Prince yet is Machiavellian enough to time this vile political betrayal now, in the hope that the stupid New Zealanders will have forgotten about his deception at election time.
Not only did he do this without warning the nation, he did it behind the back of his coalition partner Rodney Hide!
This must rank as one of the most fowl deeds of recent NZ politics, right up there with Helen Clarks election fraud regarding Pledge Gate and Winston Peters and the Baubles of Power!
As far as civilisation and progress is concerned this UN document is an Anti- civilisation declaration!
It is the reverse of that great beacon of enlightenment dated 1776 that declared that All men are created equal!
It is a violation of that latter enlightenment treaty of 1840 that guaranteed equal rights for all New Zealanders, and cuts asunder the peoples it ideologically united as one.
I now wonder what National/Maori Spin doctors will weave, to convince the sheeple that the real treaty of Waitangi and the UN declaration of Indigenous rights can be honoured at the same time?
Oh that’s right…they have already been ‘educated’!
Hypocrisy! Stinking filth!
Where I ask, are journalists reminding the sheeple that Hone Harawera and co rejected all established authority in New Zealand apparently demanding Maori Sovereignty, yet now call for us to surrender our sovereignty to the dictates of foreign powers centralised in the UN?…oh that’s right, all our journalists have been ‘educated’ too!
It has been left to Libertarians and Patriots such as the One New Zealand Foundation to ring out the alarm.
I have been telling New Zealanders for years that contrary to what we are being taught, the real racial troubles of our Nation were not a result of failure to honour the treaty of Waitangi, but emanates from Anti Western Racist Socialist Ideology emanating from the UN.
I have been saying that even without the Treaty of Waitangi we would still be in this racist mess and I have referred to Zimbabwe and Fiji as proof of this, yet my voice and that of a small bunch of individuals has been as one who cries out in the wilderness.
When I said Frank Bainamarama is a hero of racial equality before the Law, desperately fighting the Indigenous racists of his country, The media and the sheeple choose to ignore my arguements, and vilify Bainimarama.
Well ignore me if you will, but don’t ignore the Haka of Hone Harawera!
You do so at your Peril and that of your children.
Harawera has already told you to your face that his party intends to wield The UN declaration as a weapon to crush the rights of all non-Maori!
Listen to the Racist Judges such as Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie who have already indicated to Maori Party that they will collaborate with their racist schemes that invoke the UN declaration!
Listen to the media that now tells us that even the treaty grounds themselves will now be claimed as exclusively Maori!
Read the declaration for yourselves and realise it is a green light for an utterly divided country, severed into two different Nations, with two different governments!
That is what self-determination means!
Ask your Zimbabwean neighbours who are now refugees from their motherland!
Why has Rodney Hide not withdrawn his support from such treacherous Leadership?
Hide has no credibility! It was obvious from the day John Key hongied Tama Iti what extremes he was prepared to stoop to in his bid for power and when Key ask to support a National/Maori Party coalition, Hide should have refused outright!
He sold himself and his party’s claims to oppose Waitangi apartheid for forty pieces of silver…just as Winston Peters did with Helen Clark.
True Justice is Blind to Colour, Culture, Creed, etc.
Whom will save us from this diabolical scheme?
What evils must we now face?
To what lengths must we now strive… how much blood must soon flow to win yet again justice and equality before the Law and restore our land to the tranquillity hard won in the 1860s?
We must throw out National and the Maori Party, and don’t let Labour or the Greens back in either as they share the same racist politics as National/Maori.
We must get the Real treaty restored, ie The Littlewood Treaty which is an exact translation of The signed Maori Te Triti o Waitangi and scrap the perverted revised Modern perversions that are being used to justify Maori sovereignty and separatism .
We must abolish the separate electoral roll and Maori seats in Parliament.
We must abolish all race based Laws and state institutions.
We must enshrine a New constitution of equality before the Law!
We must abandon the UN.
We ought to support Frank Bainimarama in his struggle to have racial equality in Fiji.
New Zealanders need to look past all the charlatans of the mainstream parties and look for new representatives who have not sullied themselves with racist politics
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent
Hamilton West.
