Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

Having Paula Bennett as Minister of Social Development and Employment (Minister of Social Welfare in old-speak) is a shameless marketing ploy by John Key. A segment of the population swung away from Labour at the election and Key wants to keep them swung his way with a Maori who is a former beneficiary. This also helps to reduce the white-guy-in-a-starched-shirt image of National. The offices of Work and Income New Zealand (the social welfare department) are dominated by Maori and Pacific Island women, so having one at the top fits in well.

The NZ Herald sounds like a union/communist newspaper when describing Bennett:

Twenty years ago, Paula Bennett was a teenage Maori solo mum trying to get off the DPB by waitressing at a truck stop and washing dishes at a retirement home.

Note the reverse racism here: the Herald mentions that she’s Maori, but you’ll never see an article lauding the fact that someone is Pakeha/white. Of course not, because Pakeha are the oppressors and the Maori are triumphing despite this, so their victories must be mentioned.

This same article also show’s Bennett’s Socialists/Marxist beliefs and her patronising paternalism (maternalism?):

She [Bennett] expects her associate minister, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, to be instrumental.

“She and I share a belief that all children are our children. That means the good, the naughty, the broken and the cherished. We’ve talked about that many times, and I’ve got no doubt that’s the understanding we will bring to the role. She will play a big role. She’s got experience and some really firm views on what we need to do for Maori people.”

“She and I share a belief that all children are our children”. How dare she claim ownership of New Zealand’s children! The arrogance of this is breathtaking: children belong to parents and parents alone. It’s all part of the Social/Marxist agenda of controlling children and undermining parental authority.

This is a variation on “it takes a village to raise a child” (click here to view an example from Barack Obama) and is no better than Sue Bradford’s arrogance (click here and here for examples).

We have a new government but the underlying attitudes haven’t changed. The Socialists/Marxists who are running this country should keep their filthy claws away from our children.

I am Pakeha and I am oppressed:

♦ the local hospital provides interpreters for patients who are immigrants and can’t understand English, but it doesn’t provide interpreters for patients who are Pakeha and can’t understand the immigrant doctors and nurses

♦ the tertiary institutions provide quotas and extra assistance for Maori and Pacific Islanders, but no quotas or extra assistance targeted at Pakeha

♦ the government funds Maori TV, but not Pakeha TV

♦ the police have a National Strategic Adviser (Maori Pacific Ethnic Services), but no National Strategic Adviser (Pakeha Ethnic Services)

♦ there are Maori Mental Health Services but no Pakeha Mental Health Services

♦ there is a Maori Electoral Roll and Maori seats in parliament, but no Pakeha Electoral Roll or Pakeha seats

♦ there is a rugby team called New Zealand Maori but not a team called New Zealand Pakeha

♦ State occasions are opened with a language that I don’t understand

♦ there are various Urban Maori Authorities but no Urban Pakeha Authorities

♦ Housing NZ has a Maori Strategic Plan but no Pakeha Strategic Plan

♦ there is a Minister of Maori Affairs but no Minister of Pakeha Affairs

**********

This is a satirical way of illustrating reverse racism in NZ and anyone who posts abusive comments will be banned, but there is also a serious point to be made.

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, and the “oppressors”. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing.

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”. There is a Marxist agenda behind political correctness, and the perpetuators of that agenda are using anti-discrimination laws to take away our choices and impose their beliefs upon us. Will you accept it when you are treated like a dumb sheep or will you leave the flock and join the free?

**********

* calling a black American an “Afro-American” is absurd: if a white person from South Africa goes to America no ones calls him an Afro-American. Africa is a continent, not a skin colour

♦ For an excellent example of reverse discrimination, go to http://www.democrats.org/ and click on People: you’ll see a list of just about every type of American, except white, middle class, urban Americans. Mr Barack “All-inclusive” Obama is discriminating against them

♦ Credit is due to Walter Block of the Mises Institute for his assistance with part of this article