• Sue Kedgley says Super City laws are draconian

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Yes, the woman who wants to control what people eat (for their own good, naturally) says that the law forming the new Auckland City Council is “draconian” (source). In another speech she said

The Green Party rises more in sorrow than in anger at the third reading of this bill.

Once upon a time we in New Zealand really took democracy very seriously.

Oh the sanctimoniousness: my initial reaction was . The Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) wouldn’t know what democracy was if it jumped up and bit off their dreadlocks.

Kedgley is saying that her draconian policies are fine, but other people’s aren’t.

Kedgley, you’ll never see the truth whilst your massive arrogance is blocking the view.

Related posts:

Auckland gets Super City, govt cleans blood off jackboots
Note to Aucklanders: prepare rectum for implant of jackboot
Sue Kedgely can’t force people to live healthy lives

~~~~~~~~~~

• Sue Kedgely can’t force people to live healthy lives

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The NZ Herald is reporting the Sue Kedgley is banging on her well-worn drum again, wanting to force healthy food down the throats of school children. Today I witnessed a scene that caused me to ponder the effectiveness of such Nanny State schemes.

What I witnessed was a heavily pregnant woman sharing a cigarette with her son who was about ten years old. I was agog: I believe that the woman should be free to do this, but I also believe that what she is doing is stupidity on stilts.

Back to Sue Kedgley: imagine that she does succeed in forcing school tuck shops to sell only healthy food, and assume that kids are actually going to buy the stuff rather than force their parents to give them junk food. Are the health benefits of that food going to make much difference to a ten year old smoker? Are the health benefits of that food going to outweigh the effects of what, it is safe to assume, is his unhealthy diet eaten at home? Are the health benefits of that food going to help a baby who is presently in utero and will most likely be born underweight as well as prone to asthma and other illnesses associated with smoking during pregnancy?

I believe that, in the case of the family I observed today, having only healthy food in school cafeterias will be about as effective as urinating on a burning house.

Sue Kedgley needs to wake up, smell the sausage rolls, and accept four simple facts:

1. urinating on burning houses is a waste of time
2. parents alone are responsible for the health of their children
3. she has no right to tell people what to eat
4. no one can force people to live healthy lives.

What do you think about the idea of forcing school tuck shops to sell only healthy food?

Related posts:

•“Food police” on the streets of England (Part 1)

• “Food police” on the streets of England (Part 2)

~~~~~~~~~~

John Key on families

National has been delivering a pamphlet entitled “Families”, which features three photos of Key with cute kids and plenty of Socialist/Marxist welfare, health and education policies. One particular statement from Key jumped out at me:

I’m not judgemental about the shape a family may take but I do know that families provide the best foundation for the future of our young people.

Here Key is putting a bob each way, trying to appeal to both social liberals and social conservatives. From this I draw three conclusions:

1) social liberals need not fear voting National, because Key is a social liberal

2) social conservatives should not expect a pro-family stance from Key, however it is reasonable to assume that he will not have the aggressive anti-family stance of Labour and the Greens. Having said that, Key’s stance on the anti-smacking law is of serious concern even for those people who don’t have children. Samuel Dennis believes that the Family Party has a good chance in Mangere, East Coast Bays and Manukau East, so social conservatives in those electorates should consider using their electorate vote to bring a pro-family voice into parliament. Those in Epsom should vote for Rodney Hide.

3) the National Party has shed its principles; these days National is a left wing party and will say whatever it takes to get votes.

The bottom line is that having John Key as Prime Minister would be a lesser evil than having the Witch Witch (a.k.a Helen Clark) in control.

The truth about voting Green

**********

Click here for more info about the second picture

The Liberal Left agenda in New Zealand

Samuel Dennis kindly left a comment on an earlier post of mine and I would like to respond to the first part of that comment. Samuel said:

I agree that there is probably little public support for the liberal left agenda, or at least less than is represented in Parliament. But the liberals have been able to achieve their agenda because they get together – heaps of people vote Green for example even though they disagree with many of their ideas, because they agree with the rough philosophy or (in most cases) what they think the rough philosophy of the party is.

This raises some questions:

1) why is the proportion of parliament that is liberal left greater than the proportion of the general population that is liberal left¹?

2) why have the Liberal Left been successful in pushing their agenda?

3) why do people vote Green even if they disagree with their non-environmental policies (which is what I understand Samuel’s comment to mean)?

My answers are below, but first some background information from an earlier post:

After World War One the marxists were dismayed to find that the working classes hadn’t used the war as an opportunity to start a communist revolution, as marxist theory said they would. Since marxist theory is (supposedly) never wrong the marxists concluded that Western cultural and religious values were blinding people to what was (supposedly) in the best interests of their class.  Therefore the marxists began to attack those Western values, their intention being to destabilise Western culture and allow the (supposedly) inevitable proletarian revolution to happen.

Western culture has its roots in Christianity, so when the marxists began to attack Western culture they also attacked Christian values. E.g. when the communists came to power in Hungary in 1919, the first thing they did was to introduce sex education into schools (yes, State teaching of moral values is nothing new). That is why the liberal left of today, who are fundamentalist marxists, choose a position on each issue that is anithetical to Christianity, as Samuel describes.

My answers to the questions above are as follows:

1) why is the proportion of parliament that is liberal left greater than the proportion of the general population that is liberal left¹?

The short answer is that you have to be at the helm to steer a ship. Not only does being at the helm allow the Socialists/Communists to steer the ship, it also satisfies their lust for power.

It is harder to undermine Western cultural values when doing so entails promoting illegal acts, e.g. promoting homosexuality when homosexuality is illegal. It is much easier to promote things that are legal, e.g. when homosexuality was legalised in 1986 it enabled homosexuals to go into schools and and lecture students on all the practical details of homosexuality, thus affecting the values of future generations. When something is legal it also allows the Liberal Left to claim persecution by those people who object to it, and they then pass laws which are supposedly designed to protect the “victims” but are in fact designed to silence the opposition, e.g. hate speech laws.

The Liberal Left also have a vested interest in legalising their own behaviours, at both a psychological level and a practical level.

2) why have the Liberal Left been successful in pushing their agenda?

The answer to this question could easily form a doctoral thesis, but here’s a short list:

a) the policies of the liberal left appeal to human nature, i.e. people want to do whatever feels good at the time and the liberal left are all for that.

b) the Liberal Left is a part of Socialism/Communism, which appeals to the lazy nature of mankind. In other words, if the State makes itself responsible for sorting out people’s lives then people don’t have to take responsibility for themselves.

c) you will find that a good number of the present Labour government come from the school sector (e.g. Chris Carter and David Benson-Pope) and/or the university sector (e.g. Helen Clark and Phil Goff). This enables them to instill liberal left values into young people and thus affect the outcome of future elections².

d) for the purposes of this argument I will divide the population into Liberal Left, Conservative, i.e. those people opposed to the liberal left agenda, and Classical Liberalist³.

The Liberal Left is aiming for a specific goal, i.e. polymorphous perversism and the transformation of society. The Conservatives are aiming to roll back that agenda to whatever each person considers to be the ideal for society. The Liberal Left have a positive goal, and the Conservatives have a negative goal. It is much easier to achieve a positive goal than it is to achieve a negative one. In other words, it is much more effective to say “I wish to achieve X”, rather than saying “I am opposed to those who are in favour of achieving X”. To put it another way, the Liberal Left is on the offensive and the Conservatives are acting defensively, which military doctrine says is the weaker position.

e) this is related to d). The Liberal Left like to foist their agenda upon other people; that is why they have the Hero Parades and slogans such as “Penetrate  Homophobes” (thankfully I’m not a homophobe!). When did you last see heterosexual married couples promoting their lifestyle by parading down the street scantily clad and engaging in sexual behaviour that should be confined to a bedroom?

3) why do people vote Green even if they disagree with their non-environmental policies (which is what I understand Samuel’s comment to mean)?

The answer to this is related to 2) c) above. Green beliefs are a religion⁴ that is taught in schools. Children are taught that it is morally right to be be “environmentally friendly” (what a bizarre neologism), and that moral code is reinforced with a large dose of fear in the form of promised calamities if they abuse the environment. Thus children grow up and vote Green.

Presumably Samuel Dennis didn’t imagine that I would find so much to say about his comment.

**********

1) according to Statistics NZ there 316 civil unions registered within NZ in 2007, of which 252 were homosexuals couples. 21,500 marriages were registered in 2007: 252 is 1.17% of 21,500, which doesn’t mean a heck of a lot, but it does give some indication of the popularity of Liberal Left policies. Remember also that the Liberal Left may still quote data from the Kinsey Report, which grossly overestimated the homosexual population due to Kinsey – a bisexual, a sexual masochist and almost certainly a paedophile – selecting a biased sample.

2) there is much complaint about falling education standards, with reduced literacy, reduced mathematical skills, the absence of the teaching of logic/reasoning, and an increased amount of time spent on “soft” subjects that do not provide the academic and practical skills necessary for independent adult life. My hypothesis is that the Liberal Left promote such moves in our schools because it is much easier to control a population that cannot think independently and cannot reason, so therefore cannot see the flaws in the liberal left world view. Border collies can control sheep because the collies are smarter than the sheep and are comfortable with working independently.

3) classical liberalists are opposed to the totalitarian aspects of the liberal left agenda and support the personal freedoms aspect of it. For example, a classical liberalist would be opposed to the anti-smacking law and in favour of the legalisation of homosexuality. This is a consistent approach, because outlawing smacking and outlawing homosexuality both amount to the State telling people what they cannot do: to put it another way, classical liberalists say that the State has no right to tell people how to run their lives or the lives of their children.

4) the Green religion is neopaganism, i.e. they worship Gaia, the earth goddess. That is why you see the Earth personified (given human character) in pictures such as this one, and if you then view this picture you will see how the Greens give the Earth a status equal to that of a human being. It is hypocritical for the pro-abortion Greens to show a picture of a child with the slogan “Vote for me”; George Orwell would call this Doublethink.