Weird. The current and building tension has nothing to do with colour and everything to do with the conflict between democratic individualism on the one hand and tribal collectivism on the other. As the Sainted David Lange pointed out decades ago, you can have one or the other but you can't have both together. Under Ardern and He Puapua, Maori nationalists were making their end-run for effective control of this country. The 2023 election checked this, but the push continues. White supremacy? Yeah, Nah.
Chris Trotter has got it entirely wrong about intolerance to brown faces. Rather I suggest the intolerance such as it is and was, is related to tribal cultural values and behaviours that happen to correlate with brown faces, which don't sit well with those that emphasise individual responsibility, aspiration and the kind of intellectual merit concomitant with a modern knowledge based market economy. Certainly he is correct about National having its arm twisted about the Treaty Principles Bill, but that is because they are tending woke capitalists (e.g. the PM has a history as a DEI champion), which may sound strange but of which there are many examples worldwide. Whilst at the same time National is largely uninterested in, unschooled in and generally hopeless when it comes to other than financially related matters, such as dealing with cultural division. Maorification is certainly as serious a problem as Chris indicates, but this has been enabled primarily by a widespread Western nations leftist lurch towards mass psychotic intersectional politics, as reflected in the entirely illogical go-native stance of so many of our non-Maori local councilors, judges, academia and wider. If this isn't psychotic I don't know what is.
Jacinda & Co, with their foolish capitulation to a clearly unacceptable ethno nationalist agenda has a lot to answer for. The hiding of the He Puapua report prior to the 2020 election and it's subsequent covert introduction must surely rank as one of the most deceitful, divisive and destructive acts of any NZ government.
An out in the open national discussion and public referendum is nothing to fear. Fear the lie not the truth.
Ardern et al certainly precipitated much of the unhealthy, extreme behaviour we're experiencing, though I maintain that this is an NZ manifestation of a wider mass psychosis that's impacting the UK, France, the USA (with BLM etc) and other nations. In other words something similar would have occurred, such as has happened in Australia, even without an Ardern. Hence the continuation, reactionary pushback against Government changes, with the mental condition still rife. Such tending psychotic trends eventually dissipate, or get eroded or pushed aside by new trends that hopefully aren't so damaging. Climate change is another. Societal feedback loops exacerbated by digital connectivity, which obviously is something relatively new. Capable perhaps of creating rapid, extreme perturbations in societal fabric.
But anyway yes the damage being done needs to be recognised and addressed such as David Seymour is attempting to achieve in an uphill struggle against woke capitalists, National.
As always Chris is perceptive and makes some very valid points. However, it’s not the whole of a very nuanced story and a very particular version seen through his socialist lens. I suspect he is right in the big picture that some sort of showdown is coming. Democracy is imperfect but so far “the least bad system”. It doesn’t deliver socialism to Chris’s chagrin. It also will not deliver an “ethno-state”. Chris is correct that there are elements that want this - supported by a mindlessly biased and infantile MSM. The immutable reality remains that democracy and the ethno-state cannot co-exist. When it comes down to choosing - who will win?
It is said that words help us see what we other wise miss- Your words serve this purpose. Thank you for such powerful critical analysis of the ideologies shaping the orthodox world. So grateful other worlds remain welcoming us home to shelter here.
Chris Trotter has got it entirely right about intolerance to brown faces. The intolerance he refers to, which is more widespread than you'd think, is due to pretty simple racism and the white majority fear of a power shift.
Racism or an aversion to rights dependent on ethnicity? I suspect there's a bit of both but it's far from clear that racism itself is a widespread factor; there's plenty of "brown faces" that have concerns, for example. Try having an honest conversation with our Indian or Chinese Kiwis, and many Maoris, about it.
Looking at it from a psychological perspective (from a retired psychotherapist) in any society those who are seen as "other" are always treated badly, victimised and/or feared. I think back to 1950s primary school in a small country town and the kids who were bullied or excluded in some way were those who, for example, dressed differently from the herd. There is nothing that advertises otherness so obviously as skin colour which means that it's an inherent factor in a very complicated equation when unpacking the racism issue, regardless of the ethnicity.
Aroha: "the kids who were bullied ...........dressed differently from the herd".
People do seem to have a propensity for herd like othering of the outsider but we were a different country back then. The rise of individualism (and it's bastard child group separatism) as an end in itself has led to a different, more ideological, phenomena where markers of separateness are celebrated and exaggerated. Witness the performative dress and behavior of the Maori party hierarchy. There is, I suspect, a deep unease about that and it's implications. Why would they do that? Perhaps the generation of angst is the real purpose? Perhaps they really want to be "othered" and thus have their victimhood obsessions confirmed?
“if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation.” Jordan Peterson.
Do they, or any of us really want to see what becomes of the fringes when the centre becomes degraded, demoralised and, effectively, ceases to exist?
Or as Yeats put it, when the centre cannot hold, order breaks down and chaos ensues. I think we're seeing the beginning of this world-wide, especially with the rise of the supremacy of critical theory and its tenets in all institutions and public life.
I suspect you will find this remarkable research paper interesting, Aroha.
Excerpt: In principle, in the war between the individual and the collective, the duality between state and individual must be bridged or overcome, so that one side or the other emerges triumphant—but this end is illusory. The consequence of the struggle between such opposing forces is not the final victory of either. There is simply no possibility of finally eradicating social being, in consequence of the triumph of an extreme individualism, Ayn Rand notwithstanding. Likewise, there is no reduction of the fact of
the individual to a homogenous, idealised state. What transpires instead in consequence of their conflict is not the conquest of one, but the exacerbation of the worst tendencies of both.
How do the opposites feed, nourish, and magnify one another? Any higher identity can be caricatured as nothing but the tyranny of a higher power, from the point of view of the individual—a tyranny which
must be overthrown in the service of true liberation. This is true of marriage, family, private enterprise, and religious endeavour; indeed, of any imaginable collective. This is “self-actualisation” in the absence
of any true self, a concept sullied by two illusions: first, that anarchy is freedom; second, that the desire for anarchical freedom is something separate from the desperate and self-defeating wish to sacrifice all responsibility for an impulsive, hedonistic, and immature irresponsibility.
From the collectivist standpoint, alternatively, all higher identities can be represented as nothing more than partial and corrupt versions of the ultimate homogenous collective—and, therefore, as impediments to that end, to be suppressed, fragmented, demonised, and otherwise destroyed. The collectivist can tempt the anarchists with the eradication of marriage, offering free love; of family offering freedom from mature, adult responsibilities; of work, offering distributed wealth, without
effort; of religion, offering freedom from restrictive superstition.
As all the meaning and purpose once contained in those intermediary identities is thus destroyed, allegiance to the state becomes both overwhelmingly tempting and increasingly all-consuming.
Untrammelled, irresponsible, narcissistic pleasure-seeking as a precursor to state slavery; shades of Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island. Force applied too brutally and rigidly on one side of the dialect produces a countervailing and compensatory response on the other. Paradoxically, therefore, a too-extreme insistence on the independence and self-contained autonomy of the individual, freeing himself from religion, family, nation, and other forms of social unity, means that the totalitarian state becomes more,
rather than less, likely, as the state expands to occupy all the intermediary roles and responsibilities abandoned by the too-self-concerned individual. In the same way, from the point of view of the state, individuals isolated from each other as much as possible—all allegiance to intermediary identity eradicated—become the welcoming targets of attempts to universalise the collective.
Weird. The current and building tension has nothing to do with colour and everything to do with the conflict between democratic individualism on the one hand and tribal collectivism on the other. As the Sainted David Lange pointed out decades ago, you can have one or the other but you can't have both together. Under Ardern and He Puapua, Maori nationalists were making their end-run for effective control of this country. The 2023 election checked this, but the push continues. White supremacy? Yeah, Nah.
Chris Trotter has got it entirely wrong about intolerance to brown faces. Rather I suggest the intolerance such as it is and was, is related to tribal cultural values and behaviours that happen to correlate with brown faces, which don't sit well with those that emphasise individual responsibility, aspiration and the kind of intellectual merit concomitant with a modern knowledge based market economy. Certainly he is correct about National having its arm twisted about the Treaty Principles Bill, but that is because they are tending woke capitalists (e.g. the PM has a history as a DEI champion), which may sound strange but of which there are many examples worldwide. Whilst at the same time National is largely uninterested in, unschooled in and generally hopeless when it comes to other than financially related matters, such as dealing with cultural division. Maorification is certainly as serious a problem as Chris indicates, but this has been enabled primarily by a widespread Western nations leftist lurch towards mass psychotic intersectional politics, as reflected in the entirely illogical go-native stance of so many of our non-Maori local councilors, judges, academia and wider. If this isn't psychotic I don't know what is.
Yes Ron.
"If this isn't psychotic I don't know what is".
Suicidal Empathy?
Jacinda & Co, with their foolish capitulation to a clearly unacceptable ethno nationalist agenda has a lot to answer for. The hiding of the He Puapua report prior to the 2020 election and it's subsequent covert introduction must surely rank as one of the most deceitful, divisive and destructive acts of any NZ government.
An out in the open national discussion and public referendum is nothing to fear. Fear the lie not the truth.
Ardern et al certainly precipitated much of the unhealthy, extreme behaviour we're experiencing, though I maintain that this is an NZ manifestation of a wider mass psychosis that's impacting the UK, France, the USA (with BLM etc) and other nations. In other words something similar would have occurred, such as has happened in Australia, even without an Ardern. Hence the continuation, reactionary pushback against Government changes, with the mental condition still rife. Such tending psychotic trends eventually dissipate, or get eroded or pushed aside by new trends that hopefully aren't so damaging. Climate change is another. Societal feedback loops exacerbated by digital connectivity, which obviously is something relatively new. Capable perhaps of creating rapid, extreme perturbations in societal fabric.
But anyway yes the damage being done needs to be recognised and addressed such as David Seymour is attempting to achieve in an uphill struggle against woke capitalists, National.
Reality is that a confrontation is inevitable.
Ethnostate or democracy?
Even with the indoctrinated Tangata Tiriti th
e majority will vote to retain power.
The other fight which is related is between the Managerial class and the rest of us.
We should fight both now while democracy will still win
As always Chris is perceptive and makes some very valid points. However, it’s not the whole of a very nuanced story and a very particular version seen through his socialist lens. I suspect he is right in the big picture that some sort of showdown is coming. Democracy is imperfect but so far “the least bad system”. It doesn’t deliver socialism to Chris’s chagrin. It also will not deliver an “ethno-state”. Chris is correct that there are elements that want this - supported by a mindlessly biased and infantile MSM. The immutable reality remains that democracy and the ethno-state cannot co-exist. When it comes down to choosing - who will win?
It is said that words help us see what we other wise miss- Your words serve this purpose. Thank you for such powerful critical analysis of the ideologies shaping the orthodox world. So grateful other worlds remain welcoming us home to shelter here.
👏👍
This is extremely illluminating,! Fair play, anyone?
Chris Trotter has got it entirely right about intolerance to brown faces. The intolerance he refers to, which is more widespread than you'd think, is due to pretty simple racism and the white majority fear of a power shift.
Racism or an aversion to rights dependent on ethnicity? I suspect there's a bit of both but it's far from clear that racism itself is a widespread factor; there's plenty of "brown faces" that have concerns, for example. Try having an honest conversation with our Indian or Chinese Kiwis, and many Maoris, about it.
Looking at it from a psychological perspective (from a retired psychotherapist) in any society those who are seen as "other" are always treated badly, victimised and/or feared. I think back to 1950s primary school in a small country town and the kids who were bullied or excluded in some way were those who, for example, dressed differently from the herd. There is nothing that advertises otherness so obviously as skin colour which means that it's an inherent factor in a very complicated equation when unpacking the racism issue, regardless of the ethnicity.
Aroha: "the kids who were bullied ...........dressed differently from the herd".
People do seem to have a propensity for herd like othering of the outsider but we were a different country back then. The rise of individualism (and it's bastard child group separatism) as an end in itself has led to a different, more ideological, phenomena where markers of separateness are celebrated and exaggerated. Witness the performative dress and behavior of the Maori party hierarchy. There is, I suspect, a deep unease about that and it's implications. Why would they do that? Perhaps the generation of angst is the real purpose? Perhaps they really want to be "othered" and thus have their victimhood obsessions confirmed?
“if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation.” Jordan Peterson.
Do they, or any of us really want to see what becomes of the fringes when the centre becomes degraded, demoralised and, effectively, ceases to exist?
Or as Yeats put it, when the centre cannot hold, order breaks down and chaos ensues. I think we're seeing the beginning of this world-wide, especially with the rise of the supremacy of critical theory and its tenets in all institutions and public life.
I suspect you will find this remarkable research paper interesting, Aroha.
Excerpt: In principle, in the war between the individual and the collective, the duality between state and individual must be bridged or overcome, so that one side or the other emerges triumphant—but this end is illusory. The consequence of the struggle between such opposing forces is not the final victory of either. There is simply no possibility of finally eradicating social being, in consequence of the triumph of an extreme individualism, Ayn Rand notwithstanding. Likewise, there is no reduction of the fact of
the individual to a homogenous, idealised state. What transpires instead in consequence of their conflict is not the conquest of one, but the exacerbation of the worst tendencies of both.
How do the opposites feed, nourish, and magnify one another? Any higher identity can be caricatured as nothing but the tyranny of a higher power, from the point of view of the individual—a tyranny which
must be overthrown in the service of true liberation. This is true of marriage, family, private enterprise, and religious endeavour; indeed, of any imaginable collective. This is “self-actualisation” in the absence
of any true self, a concept sullied by two illusions: first, that anarchy is freedom; second, that the desire for anarchical freedom is something separate from the desperate and self-defeating wish to sacrifice all responsibility for an impulsive, hedonistic, and immature irresponsibility.
From the collectivist standpoint, alternatively, all higher identities can be represented as nothing more than partial and corrupt versions of the ultimate homogenous collective—and, therefore, as impediments to that end, to be suppressed, fragmented, demonised, and otherwise destroyed. The collectivist can tempt the anarchists with the eradication of marriage, offering free love; of family offering freedom from mature, adult responsibilities; of work, offering distributed wealth, without
effort; of religion, offering freedom from restrictive superstition.
As all the meaning and purpose once contained in those intermediary identities is thus destroyed, allegiance to the state becomes both overwhelmingly tempting and increasingly all-consuming.
Untrammelled, irresponsible, narcissistic pleasure-seeking as a precursor to state slavery; shades of Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island. Force applied too brutally and rigidly on one side of the dialect produces a countervailing and compensatory response on the other. Paradoxically, therefore, a too-extreme insistence on the independence and self-contained autonomy of the individual, freeing himself from religion, family, nation, and other forms of social unity, means that the totalitarian state becomes more,
rather than less, likely, as the state expands to occupy all the intermediary roles and responsibilities abandoned by the too-self-concerned individual. In the same way, from the point of view of the state, individuals isolated from each other as much as possible—all allegiance to intermediary identity eradicated—become the welcoming targets of attempts to universalise the collective.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6516e3215981fa376a3ea80d/t/653d0f1c1d77eb666a90c11b/1698500422709/The+Subsidiary+Hierarchy+-+Jonathan+Pageau+and+Jordan+Peterson+-+ARC+Research+Paper
Haven't read this yet so can't comment, but thanks.