Kiwi Polemicist

November 5, 2009

• Garth George thinks that John Key is wonderful

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — Kiwi Polemicist @ 6:47 am

Garth George’s column this week has the nauseating title “We Should All Salute Our Wonderful PM“, and it goes downhill from there. It’s what is known as a hagiography, a biography of a saint.

Go and fetch a bucket, then read this extract:

He is a man of the people, as yet unspoiled by the poisonous atmosphere of power politics, and in spite of his position and spectacular wealth remains one of us.

He is every bit at home in the company of a class of primary schoolkids as he is with the man and woman in the street, or in the company of the world’s high and mighty. He is amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and, most of all, unaffected.

Now for a dose of reality. Recently we had a referendum where 87.4% of a representative sample of the population showed their opposition to the anti-smacking law. As I said in my earlier post, John Key’s response was thus:

giving-the-finger gorilla

I don’t care how amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and unaffected John Key appears to be: what I do care about are his actions, and his actions show that he is not a man of the people. His actions show that he is a man who wants to rule the people.

Sociopaths are some of the most dangerous people around, and they can be engaging, good-natured, unaffected, and humorous when they want to be – that’s part of what makes them so dangerous. I’m not saying that John Key is a sociopath, but I am saying don’t judge a book by its cover.



November 26, 2008

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 4)

This is the final part of this series.

In his weekly column Garth George says:

And when I attend an assembly and look at the sea of faces of those who are the future of this country, I cry out to God that somehow some way will be found to allow each and every one to fulfil his or her potential.

Garth, here’s a few ideas to get the ball rolling:

1) Accept that life isn’t fair and that some people have less (or more) potential than others.

2) Accept that the education of children is the sole duty of parents.

3) Do away with state education and reduce taxes accordingly so that parents can afford to home school or send their children to private schools. Just as private hospitals are have lower running expenses and higher customer satisfaction levels when compared to public hospitals, so do private schools when compared to public schools.

4) Repeal the laws that make education compulsory. I can hear the gasps of horror as I write: you’re probably thinking that we’ll wind up with a country full of ignorant people. Well, the state education system produces plenty of ignorant people, and history will show that education flourishes even if it isn’t compulsory.

The state has no right to require people to be educated, and when education is a privilege rather than a duty people will value it more.

5) Remove the welfare system that has destroyed the work ethic in our society. The Libertarianz idea for phasing out the welfare system is worthy of consideration.

What ideas can you add to this list?

November 25, 2008

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 3)

In his weekly column Garth George says:

Truancy remains a constant bugbear for low-decile schools, although it has improved markedly since the Clark Government ordered a hard-line crackdown.

When the daily attendance rolls come in at my local primary, an administrator telephones every absentee’s household – about 20 a day – to find out where the child is.

If she cannot make telephone contact, then as many as three letters are sent to the child’s home address. If there is still no response the matter is put in the hands of the local truancy officer and if she cannot get to the parents, then the local community constable is asked to give it a go.

The next step is to report the parents to Child Youth and Family, which arranges a family group conference at which the parents’ capacity to care for and protect the child can be brought into question.

I’m told that since the crackdown began, the truancy rate has dropped markedly, but the school’s aim of a 92 per cent daily attendance is still to be achieved.

Have you ever wondered why we have “free” and compulsory education, and why the state goes to such lengths to enforce it? Although compulsory state education did predate the Communist Manifesto, our present system bears a great resemblance to the Manifesto so I will look at the reasons that can be found there.

Marx listed ten steps for the transition from Socialism to Communism, and step ten is:

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

All those things have come to pass in New Zealand today. Why was Marx so keen on public/state schools? The answer to that is also found in the Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. [emphasis added]

I could easily write a few thousand words (or more) about this passage, but for your sake I’ll just concentrate on the part in red.

Marx clearly intended the state to take control of education so that the “ruling class” could no longer influence their children. The ruling class – capitalists – were naturally opposed to the theft of Communism and Marx wished to fill the heads of their children with Communist ideas. Click here to see how the laws of Texas require the teaching of state values today.

As I said in my earlier post:

The natural order of things is that parents are the strongest influence in a child’s life, which makes it very difficult for the State to control that child, and if a child grows up believing in the heresy of individualism he will sabotage the “communal domestic economy” and resist State control of individuals. By breaking down the family structure and thus weakening the influence of parents upon their children the State is better able to influence the beliefs of that child, which serves the Marxist agenda of power and control.

If you want to bring up little Marxists send your children to a State school and become a babysitter working for the State. If you don’t want Marxists in your home, your best option is to home school them with one of the few curricula not written by Marxists.

Children are the dominion of parents: parents can maintain control of that dominion, or they can hand control of that dominion over to the State. Running a dominion is hard work, but it sure beats the alternative.


What do you think about children being taught state values at school?


An excellent article covering the motives behind compulsory education can be found here.

November 24, 2008

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 2)

In his weekly column Garth George says:

It is all too easy to blame “the system”, or schools, or teachers for the lowly performance of so many kids, but the real fault lies elsewhere – with their parents.

For instance: at a decile 3 school with which I have a minor involvement, whose roll is 93 per cent Maori, at least half of new entrant 5-year-olds have the oral skills of 2-year-olds and no writing skills at all.

Thus the teachers cannot begin at square one; they have to spend huge amounts of time bringing their new charges up to a primary school starting point. [emphasis added]

As I said in Part 1 of this series, George’s view of the education system is based upon two Socialist/Marxist lies:

1) that life should be fair and equal and

2) if there is there is perceived unfairness and inequality then it is the job of the state to rectify the situation by force.

However, the situation that George describes shows that the state can never achieve equality.

As George says, children turn up at school with skills far below what is usual for their age: one primary teacher told me that some new entrants have never been taught to brush their teeth. These deficits are the fault of the parents, but the state has taken it upon itself to fix the situation. This takes a huge amount of teacher time and disadvantages those children who have been taught the basics by their parents. To put it another way, the state is trying to remove one inequity by creating another one.

Experience clearly shows that life isn’t fair, and experience clearly shows that the state can never change that.

Do you know of any other situations where the state education system creates an unfair situation?

November 23, 2008

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 1)

In his weekly column Garth George says:

If anything, apart from the economy, needs a fresh look and new inspiration from the incoming Government, it is education.

New Zealand is right up there with the world leaders – Denmark and Korea – when it comes to the performance of our top students. But unlike those two countries, we have a huge disparity between our top achievers and the rest.

Much of the reason for that is Denmark and Korea are largely monocultural, whereas New Zealand has always had two cultures at least, and latterly a whole bunch more.

And the tail-enders in our education system are, unfortunately, made up mainly of Maori and Pasifika children. Sure, there are many Pakeha kids who also miss out, but they are a minority.

So the most important task of the new Government when it comes to education is to maintain the standards at the top end while at the same time improving the lot of the tail.

He then lauds the new Minister of Education and her Associate Minister and says:

It will not be difficult for the new team to ensure that our top students continue to hold their place among the world’s best, for they are children and young adults who have a real desire to learn and who have wholehearted support from their families.

The real challenge will be to find methods and means to lift the performance of the thousands of children who are at the other end of the educational spectrum and who, by and large, have no parental support.

It is there that the nub of the problem lies. It is all too easy to blame “the system”, or schools, or teachers for the lowly performance of so many kids, but the real fault lies elsewhere – with their parents.

For instance: at a decile 3 school with which I have a minor involvement, whose roll is 93 per cent Maori, at least half of new entrant 5-year-olds have the oral skills of 2-year-olds and no writing skills at all.

Thus the teachers cannot begin at square one; they have to spend huge amounts of time bringing their new charges up to a primary school starting point. [emphasis added]

First I will address the blue parts: educational success in Denmark and Korea has little to do with monoculturalism and a lot to do with the strong work ethic that is prevalent in those countries, because they know that educational success aids vocational success. As George says, successful students are characterised by a desire to learn and parental support.

Now for the red parts. Why do Maori and Pasifika children form the bulk of the “tail-enders”? There are at least three reasons for this:

1) they have a cultural world view which says that one should only think about today. Educational success requires both parent and child to see that today’s actions will have value tomorrow and beyond. Allow me to illustrate.

I live in an area where the majority of the population is Maori or Pasifika and it is very rare to see people on the streets for the sole purpose of exercise. Yet when I go to wealthier areas dominated by Pakeha it is common to see joggers and walkers who are clearly out for some exercise. Exercise is just like education: it requires a care for tomorrow and willingness to sacrifice today in order to gain tomorrow.

2) universal welfare has removed the need to care about tomorrow. If the state will take care of tomorrow by stealing money off people and giving some of it to you every week, along with a house and health care, why give any thought to tomorrow? Education is all about tomorrow and thus gets binned along with all other thoughts about tomorrow.

Compare this with countries that have no welfare system: education is regarded as a privilege and the children are eager to learn because they know that the stakes are high.

3) universal welfare pays people to be uneducated. To put it another way, being uneducated is profitable because you can go to the welfare office and truthfully say “I can’t get a job”. The state then says “You are clearly oppressed by the capitalist pigs, here’s some more money so that you can enjoy equality with those who work hard to pay for your cigarettes and satellite TV”.

Who is responsible for uneducated children? Parents and the welfare system that has destroyed the work ethic.

What can you add to this list of reasons for poor education amongst Maori and Pasifika children?

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at