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.

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?

Boscawen's Lamington

For the life of me I'm no ACT supporter, but most ACT members are still head and shoulders above other parliamentarians, one such example being John Boscawen, who led the anti EFA marches last year (which, thankfully, is history).

So, it really annoyed me when a rival candidate at the Mt Albert by-election from the "People Before Profit" Party (whatever in hell that means) went up to him and put a lamington on his head. Fortunately, some others threw food at the perpetrator.

Perhaps he should be lucky I wasn't there -I'm not sure I could resist spitting at him, or something to that degree.

Warning: Following Dreams "Irresponsible"

With the full support of her parents, 15 year old Aussie Jessica Watson has a goal: to become the youngest person ever to individually circumnavigate the globe. However, her biggest challenge isn't lofty waves, strong winds and faulty equipment -it's Australian "family groups".

John Morrissey, of the Australian Family Association, has deemed the planned voyage too risky, saying:

"I've been teaching 15 year-old girls for 42 years and I'd be amazed if any of them could cope with something like that."

Similarly, from Bill Muehlenberg, of the Family Council of Victoria, says:

"...I think it sounds fairly irresponsible to allow this kind of thing to happen certainly at this young age."

Of course, a solo circumnavigation of the world presents certain dangers -of which I'm sure Jessica Watson is fully aware of, and prepared to deal with. Unlike most teenagers these days, here is a teenager who is motivated, has a purpose and a goal, and she intends to reach her goal. She represents the pinnacle of what being a teenager should be about: finding one's own wings and goals, and reaching for the stars -building up self esteem so critical at this point in life.

Instead, we have bureaucrats who don't know a single thing about Jessica telling her it's too dangerous. How dare she be motivated and willing to accomplish a goal! After all, in our politically correct world, we're always on about "letting the little people have a go". How's that supposed to help when people need to be assured of themselves and their goals, ideas and dreams?

I am fully behind her attempt to be the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe individually. Ultimately, her only true barrier to completing her voyage is if she doesn't have 100% confidence in her own ability to attain her goal.

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.

Thank God For Secularism

Three recent items from the news/blogosphere tie in nicely today:

Lindsay Perigo's recent PR "Obama Gets One Right" two days before a Woman claiming she was the "anti-Christ" kills herself and her son, a week after a new survey revealed New Zealanders were more likely to believe fortune tellers than have no doubt God exists.

That isn't to say that religion is always a bad thing; indeed the development of Protestantism during and after the Reformation helped to build a base (along with, most importantly, the re-discovery of ancient Greek thought in the Renaissance) upon which the modern, post-Enlightenment world rests. I certainly don't think much of fortune tellers, either.

However, more often than not religion is used as an excuse, justified or not, to commit horrible acts (9/11, for instance). So, a redeeming feature about New Zealand is that, certainly in public affairs, religion takes a "back seat" to more pressing issues.

That doesn't mean we're all anti-religious people; knowing many religious people myself, the great majority of them are good people, and live good lives. What it means is that religion doesn't have to come first all the time, and doesn't dominate politics.

Which (and take note) is the full and final outcome of the Reformation: by stressing the personal relationship with God, Protestantism allowed for the development of classical liberalism, and the development of the true tolerance and freedom which allowed ideas and thoughts to thrive. So while America didn't develop as a direct result of Christianity, the predominant version of Christianity in the US did allow for the Enlightenment ideals on which America is founded.

Racial Progress in Europe?

While the NAACP in the US is claiming that banks unfairly targeted black home-buyers with easy credit, a new study conducted in Germany and Eastern Europe has found that fully 5% of German 15 year olds is a neo-Nazi, with larger numbers in the far-right of German politics.

This is why I hate the detractors of America pointing to Europe as an example of racial equality: beneath the clean exterior of European statism, a huge amount of social tension still exists in the continent. In parts of Britain and France, huge numbers of Muslim immigrants live in huge ghettos that the police won't go into, where Islamic violence spreads -almost all Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe are carried out by Muslims who've lived there their whole lives in the countries they hate. In Germany and Eastern Europe, neo-Nazism is on the rise amongst teenagers and young adults, with the accompanying crimes*. In Russia, the situation in Chechnya is all the proof of racial tension in Putin's new USSR.

With racial tensions as bad as they are in Europe, perhaps race relations have in fact improved the most in that most racist of nations, the USA?

*from the article: "Government figures have shown anti-Semitic crimes rose at the end of last year."

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.

Two Articles on Atlas Shrugged

A year after having read Atlas Shrugged, two good articles comparing the events in the book to real life events in this current financial crisis:

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fact to Fiction in 52 Years

Britain, by Ayn Rand

Too sad.

US$5b for Breast Transplants

With the entire economy of America lined up in Washington to get handed free money from the Feds, few stories can be as downright bizarre as this: the US porn industry is seeking a US$5 billion bailout.

Larry Flynt, a spokesman for the industry, said

"The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine."

Actually Larry, no American should be forced to pay for breast implants and AO videos. He went on to say:

"It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

Umm, why, to both? Last time I checked, only a bed was required!

If all these bailouts are not showing Americans that their economy has been wrecked by the popular fiscal policy and quiet Keynesianism of the past half-century, I don't know what will.

Nia Glassie: My Verdict

Libertarian Sus outlines the three main reasons for the continuing murders and abuse of children, such as Nia Glassie, in New Zealand:

"1. loser dads to bugger off and leave Mum with the kids, knowing that the poor old taxpayer - again - picks the tab, and

2. loser blokes to move in with single-Mum-with-kids-on-DPB, to be fed and screwed on demand, and

3. young women to screw anything with no personal regard for future consequences, ending up with children they really don't want, who are treated accordingly."

It's interesting how this coincides with Chris Trotter's new goals for social democracy, outlined on Friday:

"Labour has to understand that its state houses, and the welfare state that built them, was just the first, not the last, stage and crowning achievement of the socialist journey. Social democracy must never be about maintaining vast swaths of the population in perpetual electoral peonage.

State houses, along with our public health and education services, must be regarded as launching-pads for heroes, not stables for Labour's donkey-vote."

In effect, social democracy ought to be so bad that it's good, by getting people who once relied on the state for every whim to try to escape as far away as possible from the state houses in which they grew up!

Also of note, is the typical leftist groups who go around say that "it is our problem", without first addressing the root causes of the problem in the culture of complete and total dependency, and then expecting us to be spies on our neighbours to solve the prolem. Any culture which resorts to the expectation that people spying on their neighbours keeps those neighbours from doing terrible things is well over the edge.

The Last Tragedy Of Shakespeare

It could read like a Shakespearean tragedy: using the excuse of their students' personal weaknesses, bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education are trying to remove Shakespeare, arguably the finest mind ever in literature, entirely from the national curriculum. Amidst fears that his works are too removed from the mind of the average High School student to understand, Shakespeare could be scrapped.

Perhaps these bureaucrats should consider the reasons why students in New Zealand are so out-performed in other countries. After years of politically-correct, post modern "teaching" strategies implemented by both Labour and National Governments, students, parents and teachers in this country have been left with the short end of the stick. What we are seeing today is a population so dumbed down that many lack basic skills and knowledge, with many ending up on the welfare state. Indeed, the reason why many students "don't get" Shakespeare has been through the curriculum introduced by the same "education officials" now proposing this measure.

This latest proposal to remove Shakespeare, and letting a student who studies a blog as a piece of English literature obtain the same marks as a student who studies Shakespeare's incredible works, is simply the next piece in the puzzle. Shakespeare's works are the best pieces of literature around, and are still very relevant in today's world.

Teachers in schools are smart enough to know this. Said one, "I am genuinely upset that the amount of literature students are required to study is being reduced and replaced with ambiguous standards which seem to water down the work students are required to do."

Said another, "All the challenge and in-depth analysis and skills required at each level are being modified, and in my opinion, made easier. "Is the implication that we should not dare to challenge students, or heaven forbid, ask them to engage with texts that really speak to the human condition in a superbly crafted form? Dumbing down again."

Yet "education officials" who have no idea of how a child's mind works dictate what gets learnt.

Politically-correct, big government dictatorial thinking at work again. Appealing to the lowest common denominator, and not challenging students to think beyond the box of government mandated thinking -the concepts of "sustainability", "equality", or in my English class, "altruism". It is taught much the same in countries such as Britain and the United States -with similar results. The most intelligent students come from countries where they are required to know the facts, instead of writing essays with criteria such as "describe an important scene in [whatever's being studied] and explain why it's important."

In a freer world, schools would be entirely free to teach whatever they want, with the choices of parents and teacher deciding what ought to be taught. As an interim measure, save us from yet more entrenchment of political correctness at school -save Shakespeare.

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"?

Winston Peters' "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"

Libertarianz is now part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", according to Winston Peters. It's true!

Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Some sense on the US election and politics in general today comes from John Stossel, who does hit show "20/20" in America, from his Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Hope you enjoy 'em! (first three from Not PC)

Stop Mollycoddling Our Children!

So says one British Early Childhood expert, Tim Gill, who's in the country at the moment, and he's becoming increasingly worried about the state of NZ children. He says:

"If we're constantly telling kids you can't do that, it's too dangerous or you can't talk to strangers or everybody out there is trying to get you, well then it's no surprise that kids are increasingly growing up anxious and afraid", he said.

And he's right. Like their counterparts in Britain, Kiwi kids are growing up being told what they can and can not do, which is damages their self-esteem and causes them to be reckless, and not think about what they're doing. This can be seen in the rising rates of youth crime and teenage suicide around the country, and indeed, around the world.

Back before political correctness got a stranglehold on public opinion, most children were left free at a young age to discover the world. They knew the risks involved, and developed out of their own experiences, not at the discretion of their parents.

Similarly, we did not have the problems facing young people back then as we have today. Many proponents of the welfare state would put this down to increased government welfare spending then (although that's hardly the case; in 1960, government spending as a percentage of GDP was at 27.7%, and 50% in 1990. It would be even more now.*) After all, welfare isn't a great concern if you spend almost the entire day playing games in the back yard!
Also, welfare wasn't something you were "entitled" to. If you could work, you worked, and it was as simple as that.

Instead, as Tim Gill says, it is the mollycoddling of today's society which is preventing them from enjoying life to the full, and political correctness, with its talk of "rights" and "entitlements" is behind that mollycoddling.

*Free Radical #73, page 3.

Corruption of Democracy

A lot has been said recently of Labour's universal student allowances scheme, and it has been thoroughly debunked. The economics behind it is stupid, and so is the justification of "equality", "fairness", etc. So, I have nothing more to add to the general debates -apart from the fact that government hand-me-outs always work to destroy democracy and the political process.

Under a libertarian government which doesn't redistribute wealth, there is little incentive for different special interests and lobby groups (such as unions, businesses, organisations representing different groups of people) to heckle the government for cash -as the government recognises that it is not its job to hand out wealth. "Getting into bed" with government is a waste of resources. Similarly, in elections, the votes of a vast number of people don't go to whoever is promising the most benefits, as is the case today.

However, we have a government which is active in the redistribution of wealth -and when the government has money to give away, there's always going to be fighting about who should get it. Suddenly, it becomes worthy to try and get government to swing your way. The only problem is, that money could've gone to any other group, so different politically -minded groups start competing for money, and the end result is that whoever promises the biggest payouts gets the vote.

This is exactly what we're seeing today in New Zealand, and this "universal student allowance" is simply the latest bribe. And until government gets its hand out of our pockets, we'll continue having different lobby groups fighting and bribing politicians for resources.