The Evil of Appeasement

Today, 6 August 2009, marks 64 years since the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Unfortunately, the West has failed to learn the lessons of Hiroshima. Leftists everywhere use it to demonstrate the horrors of war, and talk about how great world peace would be - one of the school notices today was entitled "Pray for World Peace".

Indeed, as Ayn Rand points out, war is a terrible thing. It has taken the lives of many millions of people just over the last century, and left countless more in mourning. But what the leftists refuse to recognize is that the root of war lies in something worse than war: in statism and tyranny. When a government has declared war upon its own citizens, it is never long until the surrounding nations are next. This is the way a tyranny works: it constantly needs victims.

And this is exactly what happened in World War II. The Third Reich and Japanese Empire brought war to an unprecedented new scale throughout the world. Trying to turn a blind eye to the devastation, it took until a direct attack on American soil itself for the US to enter the war. Even then, it took the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show the Japanese the evil of the philosophy that had grasped their nation.

What this represents, as well as military appeasement, is a far greater philosophical appeasement of tyranny; after all, military force is no use without proper philosophical backing; without the forces acting for good knowing that they're acting for good. Chamberlain's pragmatism is what allowed Hitler's Germany to take over so much of Europe so quickly. Because the ideals of the Western enlightenment were thrown into jeopardy after the First World War, for several years Germany and Japan were able to spread their Empires almost without interference, whereas before the British Empire would've intervened.

One of mankind's greatest follies is the persistent belief that evil is omnipotent; that humans are born sinners and man's natural state is that of a barbarian; that evil will always be here to stay. But evil runs at the sight of good -at forces who know that they are fighting for what's right.* Unfortunately, on August 6 1945, it took an atomic bomb to instill that message in the Japanese.

If anything, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't a lesson about peace, they were a lesson about the evil of appeasement.
_________

*By this, I don't mean some fanatical suicide bomber. I mean a man who has genuine positive beliefs about his philosophy, not someone who kills out of fear from an eternal Hell or the frustration of emotions without a basis in reason.

Videos on the Stimulus

(Hat tip Not PC and Shane Pleasance for links)

Now that the TARP (Toxic Assets Relief Programme) in the US has cost over $27 trillion (according to the inspector-general for the programme), now seems a good time to post some videos on the subject -they often explain more than many essays.

Here's what 1 trillion (let alone 27 trillion) can buy (sorry for the size):



Here's how the thing started in the first place (although it probably doesn't stress the governmental role as much as it should:

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Ben Bernanke's superb foresight:



And last but not least, Ron Paul in the US Senate, who's currently trying to pass a bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Open University for Maori?

From the same people talking about the horrid amount of racism that exists in New Zealand society, comes this: no need to have any qualifications to get into University! Unless, of course, you're anything other than Maori.

This is also the same group of people who talk about how they're better than everybody else in New Zealand, because they're "tangata whenua"; essentially, mysticism justifying racism. Somehow, being the first people to migrate here means you deserve more rights than everyone else.

Similarly, they support segregation of seats in Parliament, based on race. A policy that Nelson Mandela may have abhorred, but apparently it's okay because of... skin colour.

The fact of the matter is, you simply can not choose your race, ethnicity, or skin colour. This is a fact that the majority of New Zealanders seem to have grasped by now. Therefore, we should be calling the "tangata whenua" of the Maori Party what they really are:

racist.

Allowing access to University based on race: racist. Discussing how much better your race is over others, due to mysticism: racist. Supporting seats segregated on the basis of race in Parliament: racist.

Indeed, this group thinks based on lines of race. According to them, if an idea is in support of racial equality by not granting preference to people based on race, it's racist. There does not have to be any objective means of proving the racism; this is the absurdity of thinking in terms of race.

Therefore, I think the Maori Party needs to be branded for what it is, once and for all: racist. It can be denied, but the basic truth behind their rhetoric cannot be hidden.

An Irony of Sorts

The Green Party has elected Metiria Turei as their number two -the lesser of two evils, as her rival was Sue Bradford, of Anti-Smacking Bill fame. In response, Tariana Turia, the Maori Party leader, has called the election of a Maori women to the post "a political coup".

Meanwhile, in Porirua, a suburb close to where I live filled with state housing and mongrel mob members on what could've been the prime suburb of New Zealand, we have an arena named after local Maori murderer Te Rauparaha, and no one raises an eyebrow.

Perhaps the real coup would be deliberately naming a new town or infrastructure (an arena, maybe) after, say, William Gladstone. Maori chiefs can do no wrong, surely?

Maori MP Swears at Student

In a lecture given last week at Waikato University, Maori MP Hone Harawira has been accused of swearing at a student, using the 'f' word and phrases like (ironically), "my big black ass".

Not suprisingly, Harawira has been effectively banned from giving any more lectures at Waikato University. But in an interview with a local newspaper, he said "I shut him down because he's just a racist ... He just lumped Maori in with other minorities like homosexuals and Asians. I pointed out to him that we are not a minority, but tangata whenua."

Is it just me, or isn't it racist to think of one group (of a factor completely beyond human control) as intrinsically better than all others?

I think we all know who the real racist is here, Hone. I'm pointing in your direction.

Prince Charles

He's finally gone off the edge.

According to Reuters, he's publishing a book called "Harmony", about how man's recent pursuit of wealth and prosperity (read: the pursuit of happiness) is, in his words, "dangerously disconnected" from the natural world.

What an utterly ridiculous statement from a man in line to become the next King of the nation that led the world in Industrial growth in the 19th Century- thus paving the way to the prosperity enjoyed today, and the nation that first implemented, on a national scale, the ideas of the rule of law, individual rights, and common law, that founded Western politics. A nation without the ideas of which America, and no other Western nation, could exist, let alone develop originally.

So, after the death of Queen Elizabeth, I propose:

-New Zealand immediately declares a Republic;
-The Prime Minister of the time becomes the President of the new Republic; and
-A constitution is drafted similar to the US Constitution, to keep the British ideas of Rule of Law and Individual Rights alive and well.

Luckily, given the recent results of a poll by the Republican Movement, it looks like that may -may- just happen.

A Foolish Mistake Repeats

On his big tour of Europe Barack Obama has landed in Prague, touting much the same message as the anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s did. You know, the refusal to allow a nuclear submarine into port that got us kicked out of ANZUS.

Now, I'm all for disarmament -when Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea also disarm! The fact of the matter is that America (and the European nations with a-bombs) has the right to defend itself against foreign aggressors, and that does mean the possession of nuclear bombs, if necessary (which it is). The sorry state of Western powers means that defense of non-aggressive and non-totalitarian nations rests almost entirely on US action.

I'm sick of the claim that America is an Empire -if that were so, immediately after the fall of Iraq in 2005 the nation would've been annexed by the US, and any form of self-governance banned. Instead, we saw that the Americans had no strategy after the fall of Saddam, and left Iraq in a state of anarchy for two years before peace could be restored by the troop surge. Similarly, when countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran display an interest in the complete annihilation of Israel -the Middle East's only western democracy- they are only victims, somehow, of Western Civilisation.

That is absurd. Obama, you have no idea what you're getting yourself into.

One Dead (So Far) in London Riots

The riots in London over the G20 meeting have left one protester dead. Frankly, this doesn't surprise me.

The further left you go on the political spectrum, the more violent protests usually are; and in a protest as vehemently anti-capitalist as this one, events were bound to turn violent. Violent protests, far from being a form of free-speech, are in most cases just a lot of angry teenagers and twenty-somethings who:

- have never run a business, let alone the huge businesses they've been protesting against;
-have never had responsibility for their lives assumed by other people. Most protesters are not working-class people with a genuine interest in living independently -they're usually middle class.
-turn not to principles on reality, but the arbitrary to justify their assertions ("everything's relative", "you can't prove reason's relationship with reality", "one man's freedom is another man's chains" etc)
-think their ideas are "rebelling against the system". They think they're "cool" for the lack thereof.

If the protesters are really interested in the plight of the poor, they'll engage in the most noble and greatest of all human actions: the act of production- of which their reckless violence is the opposite.

Daniel Hannan

If you have not already seen him, here is Daniel Hannan, MEP for South-East England, taking on Gordan Brown over his recent economic policies... a great speaker making excellent points.

Yet More Stimulus News

On the subject of the latest Obama stimulus (only a few days ago he injected US$1,000,000,000,000 into the US economy) fellow libertarian Paul van Dinther has produced a Google Earth image showing how much area would be taken up by US$100 bills if they were all laid out side by side to make US$1,000,000,000,000.

The result just boggles the mind. (N.B.: Google Earth needed for this to work)

A Tale of Two Stories

Over the last 24 hours there have been two shooting sprees, one in Alabama in which ten people died and another in Germany, in which 16 school students died.

Both are horrific. But it's interesting to see how The Dominion Post, Wellington's daily newspaper (for foreigners) reports the stories.

For the shootings in Alabama: a good half of the front cover of the "World" section taken up by this story, including three photos of the crime scenes, eyewitness accounts and detail of the events and perpetrator.

For the shootings in Germany: 10cm of one column used for this story, some of which was used for discussing previous school shootings in Germany. Although 9 people had died when the shootings had occurred and the story was newer, the German shooting spree was far more brutal.

It would seem that this is just an attempt to make the US seem worse.

President Teleprompter

Barack Obama has a new title: President Teleprompter.*

According to the New York Times, Barack Obama has been making clever use of teleprompters at his press conferences, with the teleprompters being placed behind the audience and the TV cameras, to make it look as though he's looking at the crowd.

A rather cheeky tactic, but to be expected in the age when it's all about appearances.

*Hat tip Not PC

How Worse Will It Get?

As expected Obama and Pelosi's 1000 page stimulus package has passed both the US House of Representatives and the Senate, to be signed into law by Obama ASAP.

Let's go over some aspects of it: the bill is some +700 billions dollars of spending in various areas. First off, where will this money come from? They can take it directly from taxes -which the populace will notice directly, and not be happy about. Better to print money instead, and only notice it over a long period of time -when over stimulus can be passed. Glenn Beck shows the increase in the US money supply:



Secondly, what will the money be spent on? Rebuilding American infrastructure, economically, sounds like a good idea. But what's the point of building infrastructure if no one's going to use it? Infrastructure is built to facilitate economic growth now, when it is cost-effective. The sorry state of US infrastructure now is the result of over-enthusiastic government infrastructure building in the 50s and 60s, which couldn't all be maintained at once. Government planning in those days also centred around the suburbs, leading to unnecessary infrastructure projects.

Thirdly, is it moral to take money from those who still have it to use for projects that won't be used? To distort market signals leading to another collapse? Is it wise to take money from the producers who, like Atlas, hold up the American -and World- economy and give it to people whose only business is consuming without producing?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding: NO!

Stimulus V.2

Obama's new US$825b stimulus package passed through the House of Representatives today. Not good news.

He obviously hasn't learnt anything from the Bush US$700b (and now uncounable trillions) bailout, then!

Four More Years of Statism

The hype around Barack Obama reached new highs yesterday during the inauguration, when hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Washington to see their new President. Now, after the glamourous celebrations, reality is going to start to bite.

During his campaign, instead of outlining policies backed by evidence to tackle the current economic crisis, Barack Obama raved on about "change we can believe in", that we need to get through it "together", etc. Instead of appealling to reason, he simply used a good speaking voice to great effect, appealling to emotion.

Unfortunately for him, he's now the person people look to for leadership and guidance, and expectations are incredibly high. What happens when a man with no clue of how to lead, no rational policies and principles based on "feeling", has his finger on the button?

He cashed on the failure of Bush to extremes -he made himself look like a new hope, a new way forward by simply using the word "change". What he's been advocating is more government regulation, based on collectivism. Bush was one of the biggest spenders in US history, so where's the "change" in advocating big government?

Then of course, there's the race issue. Leftists intellectuals have been raving on about how Obama's election victory is proof of "post-racial America". They're forgeting something -a "post-racial America" would not care about race!

Barack Obama won the Presidency through appeals to emotion, not reason. Given expectations, I expect the next four years to be... hilarious, if not outright scary.

The Gaza Conflict

Predictably, thousands of people around the world have, in recent weeks, been out marching against Israel, condemning every aspect of Israel's existence whilst ignoring the role of Hamas; TV news has been abound with stories about the "destruction" of Gaza, taking for granted statistics given to them by Hamas (such as the death toll); and once again the conflict is presented as an "us vs. them" battle, with Israel having to defend every action and supporters being shouted down.

Yet, all the while nothing is heard of the constant threat that Israelis have lived under for the last several years. In response, the Israelis have built fortifications in their urban areas to protect against rockets fired from Gaza, and are constantly on the move to bomb shelters, and living in fear of the rockets. 15 people have died from these rocket attacks in southern Israel. That may not seem like many, but what it shows is that the Israelis do not want citizens of Israel to be harmed by these rockets.

Hamas, however, does not care -in fact, Gazans dying is good for their publicity. They are more than willing to hide among civilians, which makes them harder to target. Israel targets Hamas bases and vehicles with, usually, immaculate precision -yet people get killed when there's a ton of civilians around, which Hamas uses to their advantage. Not only does it make fighting the war so much harder, it draws sympathy from the Western media.

Which leads us to another fact about Gaza: the median age there is 15. The media makes it look as if Israel is unfairly targeting children. Instead, the toll on the children is a result of the young breeding of the Muslim population.
___________________________________

The World's leaders are calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. They're forgetting who first broke the last ceasefire, with Israel doing nothing about it until now. No one raised a finger then. Israel should've starting fighting Hamas from the first rocket.

But a ceasefire is never a real option for this conflict -it only allows for Hamas, and the other organisations that won't stop until Israel is wiped off the map, to regroup and re-arm. Instead, Israel should make it its mission to properly subvert Hamas, once and for all, and neutralise Gaza. In fact, if the experience of Arabs living in Israel shows us anything, it's that the people there will be significantly better off under Israeli rule!

*America Alone, Mark Steyn, page XVI

School's Out

As of today, the school year has ended for High Schools and Colleges all over the country, with Primaries and Intermediates finishing now or next week. Some kids will be out around the towns and cities, but most of them will be at home.

Just today, an article appeared in the Dominion Post warning that New Zealand's "She'll be right" attitude (what attitude? it died out years ago when, mysteriously, crime was on the rise) is to blame for fatal accidents where youths are the victims. However, would it be better to condemn those kids to a life of fear of the outside world?

While it is true that parents can take a worthy role in the education of their children about the outside world, a child must learn about it for himself. Children, more so than the rest of us, have an intrinsic desire to explore and learn about the world around them, and to have fun doing so. Education through experience best helps a child to learn about the world around them. How does preventing them from experiencing the outside world help their development?

Once again, the politically-correct cotton-wool culture of modern day New Zealand is at work, trying to protect their child -and intervening in the lives of other people's children- from the culture of self-loathing and hopelessness that they created, by changing New Zealand culture from one of self-reliance to complete reliance on others.

Perhaps removing politically correct cotton-wool culture from every facet of a child's life may help us rebuild that culture and allow our children to discover the world around them, and to build their own ideas of right and wrong, rather than having those ideas forced down their throats by a politically-correct clique.

Quite Something!

It's not too often you come across something quite like this, from friday's Dominion Post:

"Wrenched away from their homelands; required to learn a whole new language; subjected to grotesque racial stereotyping and often outright verbal and physical abuse; these children, backed by their families, have never wavered in their quest for academic, sporting and cultural excellence.

Who is served by belittling, or condemning, the distinctions conferred upon these children? Who is served by an ideology that refuses to recognise that crucial aspect of the human spirit which refuses to accept the brute statistical reality that many are called but few are chosen?"

So, who said that? Milton Friedman? Ronald Reagan? Ayn Rand? No; those were the words of Chris Trotter -yes, that's right, Chris Trotter- on Friday.

A rather remarkable change of heart for a man who said that "All my life I have given thought only to those with no hope of receiving the glittering prizes. Even when (very occasionally) I received one myself, I could not help feeling that tug of guilt; that blush of embarrassment at being distinguished from my peers." His upcoming columns may be rather interesting!

Full revelation at the Dominion Post.

Obama: New Frontiers for the Republicans?

With Obama's election result as the new President of the United States, America's taken a big leap to the Left.

However, this election result isn't about the new found sense of "hope" in American politics; it's a reaction to the smack of conservatism and a lack of willing to make proper free market reforms that have destroyed the Republican Party. It's Bush's budget deficits and Greenspan's policies of inflation, disguised as capitalism, which have triggered a reaction against the Republican Party in this election; and despite distancing himself from Bush rather well, McCain suffered for the same reasons that the NZ Labour Party is doing so.

And it's for precisely that same reason that Ronald Reagan did so much to help his party in the 1980s. America was hurting from the Oil Woes of the 1970s, and could not afford to look weak in front of the Soviet Union. Instead of following the detente policies of Jimmy Carter, he was a charismatic leader who made many substantial reforms, and in doing so made the Republican Party the party of reform.

Now, America is facing another economic crisis, high oil prices, a huge national debt, and a war on terror which has not delivered the results it promised (not that the terrorists shouldn't be hunted down and punished, but the general lack of doing so isn't helping). The Republicans have completely gone back on their principles, crying out about the "greed" on Wall Street* and how we'd all be better if we weren't unselfish. Philosophically, they are no different to the Democrats.

And that's where the problem lies.

So, hopefully, the overall outcome of this election will be good for America, as not only will Obama, providing he does try to keep his promises, prove socialism a disaster, but the Republicans will actually get back to their original principles of small government, and laissez-faire, with recent evidence and anecdotes to base the claims upon. The only question to ask now is, which politician is willing to promote the free market anymore? Best to promote socialism and the "all things to all men" policy under the guise of the free market, and do the same when socialism proves a disaster!

*Where do you not find "greed"?

Don't tell me ...!

According to the latest 3 News poll, yet another term for the corrupt, socialist Labour government currently ruling the country is looking ever-more likely.

National hadn't changed its place since the last poll, polling at 45%, and Labour went down to 37.5% -however, the real problem is the rise of the Greens, who polled at above 8%. So, given that National has a coalition with ACT and United Future (providing both parties stay in parliament), Labour and the Greens have between them only one less seat, but given the extra three "overhang" seats, neither coalition will be able to rule.

Therefore, the Maori Party chooses who will be the next Prime Minister. And although they've said that they could work with National and form the next government, they could more or less goes anywhere.

Which, in effect, means that New Zealand government for the next few years will go to whoever promises the most handouts to Maori, and all the PC stupidity that comes with modern policy surrounding race, regardless of who wins the next election.

Which, in effect, really peeves me off. MMP for you -the most power goes to the small third parties who make up for numbers with, perhaps, only one or two MPs!