When I was at university my father got into breeding cows. He started buying calves, and doing deals with some of the local farmers. I can recall going with him (he needed a second person to herd them) to farms in Mangere. I'm not sure if it was the Wallace farm at Ihumato, but I do recall the colonial stone fences. I did not know there was an archelogical site at the foreshore until recently. But that land was not Maori title: the land near was, and that iwi and a building company wanted to do a development there now housing is allowed closer to the airport. This was carefully adjudicated. Then the protestors turned up.
Source David Seymour ACT
Jacinda Ardern has legitimised unlawful behaviour by capitulating to an illegal occupation.
The PM has cultivated a brand of a kinder, more inclusive politics, but occupying private property is wrong.
She has prevented the legal owners of land from carrying out a consented development, and offered the protesters a seat at the table. In effect, the Prime Minister has said: 'if you occupy private property, the Government will take your side instead of protecting property rights.'
ACT hoped Jacinda Ardern might have some sort of master plan to persuade the protesters to back down, but instead she is heading overseas.
Its got too weird now - we have Members of Parliament effectively condoning illegal action- while members of the public are walking on eggshells worried a snarky comment on Facebook will see a visit from the PoliceComments, Whaleoil. Anonymous because the Police do visit.
We have a Maori (indigenous) land court. It was set up -- in 1840 -- and all land sold by various iwi was then returned per the treaty to their customary owners and a proper procedure made to ensure (a) there were no exploitative deals and (b) there was clear title. Yes, it at times has been unfair. Yes, there were land confiscations. But much of this land was owned by locals. Who sold it. Which is their right. But now the Land court's decision is moot. For non locals, mana whenua is the people of that (specific, local) land. In this case, it's fairly clear -- the same subtribe has lived there since the 1600s. Fletchers is a local property development company.
With her intervention, Ardern’s only compromises on show are the compromised rights of private property owners and the compromised rule of law. Fletchers and actual, legally recognised mana whenua have already agreed on a way forward with benefits to all, but our new flash-tribe, having exhausted legal avenues, have decided belligerence is their new weapon of choice.Whale Oil.
Fletchers want 480 homes on the site; their antagonists want none. The activists want the taxpayer to buy the land and give it back to them and, given Jacinda’s history of folding to demand where it’s only trifling taxpayers’ money concerned, they now believe they’ve got the opportunity to deny local iwi and Fletchers the gains of their endeavour.
The company will probably end up saying they don’t buy into disputes, they buy into developments, but if they are returned the land cost – $19,000,000, development costs so far (probably similar to the purchase price), forgone gains from the expected development and staff hours and huge barristers fees for the several years they have worked with archaeological experts and local iwi through resource consents and legal challenges including the RMA, the Environment Court and Maori Land Court, they will accede. Expect the total bill to exceed $90M.
Given an emotional argument, our prime minister folds, never mind reason and law; as compellingly factual as they may be, it’s all too much. Our new tribe of prickly protesters claims Auckland City Council’s efforts to buy the land “were thwarted by the landowner”, but is that true? From the landowner’s point-of-view: no. They wanted the best price for their land and after already agreeing to sell 21 hectares for the pittance of $1M, as much as Auckland City Council spends on afternoon tea in a year, to create the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve and feeling “that was our contribution to the public good”, they wanted a market rate for the remainder, and who can blame them?
Dealing with facts is not our protesters’ thing, nor Jacinda’s. So who are these unreasonable people and how should we address them?
If rights are rights, they are not able to be compromised and disavowed. If the left do this now and get away with it, what will happen when they are those whose rights are removed? When calling racism (as the Maori party, not the local subtribe is doing) does not work? For it will soon not.
The social justice fanatics who demonstrate in the streets, who appear nightly on our news channels broadcasting the ideological virus they call news, who parade before a House or Senate committee (or serve on that committee!), and who indoctrinate gullible and intellectually-abused students in supposed centers of higher education, are, to use Chesterton’s parable, lunatics. They are “already outside the world of reason,” and their unrestrained rage to destroy is only matched by their profound inability to create anything of real and lasting value.Boyd Cathey, Unz Review.
They partake of a virulent cultural post-Marxism that, despite slogans of “defeating racism, sexism, homophobia, and white supremacy,’’ and establishing equality, is ultimately unachievable. Its advocates are, measured by the historical reality of two millennia of Christian civilization and by the laws of nature, insane.
They sloganize about “the fruits of democracy” and “equal rights,” where in some future utopia “racism” and “sexism’’ will finally be banished….but where, in fact, the very contrary will exist, where democracy will have become a totalitarian dystopia a thousand times worse and more oppressive than anything George Orwell envisioned in his phantasmagoric novel Nineteen Eighty Four.
This element, this force in our country, which now numbers many millions of votaries, works feverishly and tirelessly to achieve its objectives. And, as we have seen, especially since the presidential election of 2016, it will do anything, use any tactic, including defamation, lawsuits, censorship, even violence to achieve its ends, to turn back what it perceives even in the slightest to be “counter-revolutionary.”
The question comes down to this: Is the fragile American experiment in republicanism begun in Philadelphia in 1787, which required a commonly-shared understanding of basic principles, now over, or at the very least is it entering its agonizing death throes?
A house divided does not merely collapse. There are, too often, conflicts. It is more likely to not be peaceable.
The "two Americas" to which the author refers are not, in fact, two Americas. There is a white Christian America and there is a not-white not-Christian not-America which are now locked into an existential struggle. The USA is now divided into a New World remnant of Christendom and the stronghold of Satandom. The latter wishes to conquer and destroy the former because it is a separate nation that worships the god of this world rather than God the Father of Jesus Christ.Vox Day, Vox Popoli.
Belloc was not entirely correct. It isn't just the national element that matters, as both the national and the religious elements are significant with regards to how the end of the USA will play out.
A conceptual model is only as good as its predictive utility. And, as you will note, there is very little predictive value in the liberal-conservative divide, the black-white racial divide, or the Democrat-Republican divide. But the Christian Nationalist vs Judeo-Christian Globalist model is almost perfectly predictive, not only of future events, but even individual behaviors, everywhere across the West.
The USA is presently facing its own October Revolution right now, one that has been decades in the making. And many of those seeking to complete the destruction of Christian America and rule over a USSA are the literal descendants, intellectually, ideologically, and genetically, of the very Bolsheviks who subjected Christian Russia and Christian Ukraine to 70 years of persecution and suffering.
One of the issues here is that our elite and press and their woke minions are urban. Urban used to be family friendly. Now it is not. The younger generation know this and are looking at how to set themselves up in a rural situation. Without families -- men caring for their kids and wives, women wisely building their homes -- neighbourhoods implode. We have, already, too many multicultural, ghettoized, failing cities.
For those young and middle-aged Americans who are having sex and having children, the smaller cities and suburbs might simply be a better place to live—and not just for the obvious reason that they’re more cost-friendly for the non-rich. Perhaps parents are clustering in suburbs today for the same reason that companies cluster in rich cities: Doing so is more efficient. Suburbs have more “schools, parks, stroller-friendly areas, restaurants with high chairs, babysitters, [and] large parking spaces for SUV’s,” wrote Conor Sen, an investor and columnist for Bloomberg. It’s akin to a division of labor: America’s rich cities specialize in the young, rich, and childless; America’s suburbs specialize in parents. The childless city may be inescapable.Derek Thompson, The Atlantic.
In two weeks, as it happens, I’m moving from New York City to Washington, D.C., into a building that was once a women’s hospital. For 150 years, since its founding in 1866, the facility specialized in delivering babies; it saw more than 250,000 new souls brought into the world, including Duke Ellington and Al Gore. The building used to be a piece of history; today it’s a demographic metaphor for the future of the American city: They gutted the maternity ward and put up a condo.
Leave the city. If the left continue to divide, it will go full Detroit, and no one will be safe, even when staying in a Hilton in Washington, DC. Be where the crowds are not.