Thursday in a time of chaos.

The left are frightened by what is happening now. They are aware that the approach they could use with the very affable and non-combative Muller won’t work with “Crusher” Collins. Bradbury is worried, and so is Trotter.

Judith Collins scares me. For the first time since National’s caucus replaced Don Brash with John Key, the party has chosen a leader who can win. The new Leader of the Opposition is a clear-sighted defender of the neoliberal order who is prepared to give when she needs to give, and takes no prisoners when she doesn’t. Collins is articulate, shrewd and possesses a disarming (if somewhat cruel) sense of humour. Those on the left who dismiss her as a major electoral turn-off will, almost certainly, be proved wrong. She has what it takes to manoeuvre Jacinda and Labour onto the defensive. And, as everybody knows: explaining is losing.

Like Act’s current collection of strategists, Collins understands that delivering neoliberalism straight leaves voters with a sour taste in their mouths. It goes down much better when fizzed-up with lashings of law-and-order rhetoric – along with generous splashes of “culture wars” liqueur. That Collins, herself, happily owns up to being a “social liberal”, only adds an extra kick to her political cocktail.

It’s this political ambiguity that makes National’s new leader so dangerous. Collins does not belong to the crazy Christian Right faction of her caucus, but neither is she a member of the Nikki Kaye, Amy Adams, Chris Bishop “soppy liberal” wing of the party. (Although she may, from time-to-time, be found voting alongside them.) For a long while now this ambiguity has constituted an unhelpful obstacle to her advancement. With the right rejecting her as too left, and the left dismissing her as too right, she has fallen repeatedly between the two stools. But now, with both factions severely discredited, being a little bit country and a little bit rock-n-roll has proved to be no bad thing at all.

The PM has said that she’s more interested in growing the economy and destroying the virus than the elections. She is not interested in the vote in two months. She’s a fool: if she does not keep vote Labour up she will be doing the worst job in politics: leading the opposition.

The ongoing purge of the NZ right of centre continues, as the liberals self remove themselves. One of whom has, like the last leader, health issues: she’s learned from the speculation about his issues and laid out what the issues are for her.

The National Party that started this week looks nothing like the party that will finish it.

Nikki Kaye began the week as deputy leader of the National Party, but she’s now among a handful of others who will step down at the 2020 election.

Kaye said she couldn’t have predicted the turn of recent events within the party but her decision to resign isn’t a reactionary one.

“It’s sort of the most extraordinary thing I’ve seen in my life in politics and so I think that’s one thing that I hope that people understand.

“The other thing is, being diagnosed with breast cancer, and I’ve not talked in detail about my health before, I don’t see life as a situation whereby you can always plan things and my view is that you have to live every moment and I have given everything to the party and the country,” she said in tears. “You have to know when your time is up and you’ve given it your all.”

Kaye tries to live like she’s only got twelve months left.

“I’ve been through a hell of a lot with breast cancer and I say to people that nothing could be worse than that…”

She says now’s the right time for her to retire.

Judith Collin’s didn’t try to convince her otherwise “but I think she knows me well enough that when I’ve made a decision, I’ve made a decision”.

The decision was not at all about Collins, she said.

The party president did try to persuade her though.

“While the timing is not great, I think that it is far more important to have a representative in Parliament that is hungry and ready to go and from my perspective I stepped up and I always said you’ve got to step up or step out and I think this is the right thing in terms of a chapter of my life.”

Kaye is motivated as a politician as she feels a sense of compassion for people and believes in equality of opportunity. She’s also being trying to ensure the National Party is progressive.

“It’s also about fighting for freedom, whether it’s same-sex marriage, whether it’s the euthanasia debate, I’ve been a strong voice of freedom.”

She was once called a glorified social worker. “I love the individual difference that I have made as a member of Parliament for Auckland Central.”

David Farrar comments, and in the process identifies which wing of the Nationals their pollster aligns with.

Nikki is one of my closest friends. We’ve been friends for around 20 years and often holidayed together. As a 28 year old she won Auckland Central off Labour – the only time in 90 years National has held the seat. She is one of the hardest working MPs and candidates I have known – her door knocking is legendary.

She went on to win Auckland Central four times, including beating Jacinda Ardern twice. She became National’s youngest ever female Minister and one of the youngest Ministers of Education.

Auckland Central will miss having her as their MP. She got involved in scores and scores of projects and delivered real results for an electorate that had been taken for granted.

Her cancer diagnosis in 2016 was a huge shock as she was so young and so fit and healthy. It was a stark reminder how cancer can strike anyone, and Nikki showed huge tenacity in fighting it.

She has spent more of her adult life inside Parliament than outside it, and so there is a lot to do outside politics. She’s already done the Coast to Coast three times, so I don’t know what her next big challenge is, but I’m sure she’ll succeed at it.

Amy Adams was leaving, stayed back for the last leader, and is leaving as well. I think they are jumping from the frying pan into the fire, because the left are, if the US woke states a model, now violent.

Consider this: the press acts as a filter, and they do short interviews. Short interviews can be gamed, and the press is overtly liberal. But this is a bug, not a feature.

A population centered around an endeavor will over time become dominated be an increasingly homogeneous group who shares many of the same physical, behavioral and psychological traits. Generally the selection filters work both to construct, maintain and screen for traits that permit advancement, but also to filter out negative traits. In a corporation for instance, a frequent source of issues with corporate hiring is that screening for “snakes in suits” is very difficult because psychopaths and narcissists usually have great interview skills, it’s hard to see through glibness and superficial charm during a 45 minute interview. Conversely, people with great skills for the job but poor interview skills tend to not get hired. Hence, over time a corporation gradually gets more and more dominated by the wrong people.

This is happening in the twittersphere. Some of the left have drunk too much koolaid.

Which leads us to today’s long read, from Didact. Vox Day has his legal legion of evil helping out in the Patreon situation, and I support the replatforming subscription book service. I am not directly involved in this: my motto is Avoid the US legal system and Internal Revenue Service, and since I’m not American, I can generally do this.

Now, yours truly may or may not have a certain amount of fiduciary interest in this whole circus – I’m not letting on either way – but it is certainly highly amusing to watch. It is really clear that Patreon never thought that it would be in a position to de-platform people, and when they found themselves doing precisely what they thought at one point was bad for business, they then panicked and decided that they needed to change the rules ASAFP to stop the problem that they CREATED FOR THEMSELVES from biting them in the ass.

It very obviously has not worked.

We shall see what happens. I have no particular interest in much armchair lawyering – I’m not a lawyer, I don’t pretend to be, and I have no clue what will happen. But I do think that Big Tech has just been put on notice.

Companies that purport to be “platforms” like Patreon, or “payment processors” like PayPal, now have a keen interest in this case. If the Bears succeed – and I have good reason to think that they will – then Big Tech will no longer be able to run roughshod with impunity over content providers and their subscribers.

This is especially important because one of our own, Roosh V himself, just got deplatformed from YouTube, which cuts off one of his primary sources of income these days. Does this amount to tortious interference by YouTube between Roosh and his subscribers and patrons? I don’t know. I doubt it, but I don’t know. I’ll leave it to lawyers to figure that one out.

But Roosh was a relatively easy target because he lives in the USA. American law distinguishes between platforms and publishers and gives platforms significant legal protections – which His Most Illustrious, Noble, August, Benevolent, and Legendary Celestial Majesty, the God-Emperor of Mankind, Donaldus Triumphus Magnus Astra, the First of His Name, the Lion of Midnight, may the Lord bless him and preserve him, could remove from them pretty easily if he were so inclined.

And he should be so inclined. They are working night and day to destroy his campaign and to ensure that his influence is rendered null and void, as if they could put the nationalist genie back in its bottle now.

European law, on the other hand, is far less forgiving toward Big Tech, which is why a number of freethinkers who use YouTube services in Europe have not been deplatformed, not yet.

If this lawfare approach against Patreon succeeds – and, again, I believe that it will – then we are looking at a huge change in the balance of power between users and platforms. And that is very much to the good.

Let’s see where this goes. One thing is for sure – the fireworks are going to be a lot of fun to watch.

The Didact

Some fireworks are not as fun. I’m quoting David Farrar twice today, because he’s got data, and data is good. If you attack police — generally unarmed in NZ — expect that they will defend themselves, and the adverse consequences will be proportionate to the population that attack them, not to the general population.

A couple of months ago some of the usual suspects said that the Police should be defunded and not armed etc because most of the people shot by the Police have been Maori or PI.

Of the 21 people killed by Police between 1990 and 2015, seven are European, nine Maori, three Pacific and two others. Now I personally didn’t thunk the Police are shooting people because they are Maori, but because they were posing a threat to Police or others.

It got me wondering about the other side of the equation. What is the breakdown by ethnicity of those who have killed or assaulted police officers. So I asked the Police and they have responded.

There have been eight (now nine) officers killed since 1990 and the ethnicity of the killers is three Maori, two Europeans, one Pacific and two unknowns. So at least half of those who have killed Police are Maori or Pacific – much the same ratio as those killed by Police.

Not enough data to reach much of a conclusion but the assault data is more robust as there has been a shockingly high 16,000 assaults on police officers since 2010.

The ethnicity breakdown of people assaulting police officers is:

Maori 50% (17% of pop)
European 39% (70% of pop)
Pacific 9% (9% of pop)
Asian 2% (15% of pop)

No doubt the usual suspects will somehow also blame the Police for being assaulted so often by Maori and Pacific offenders!

Do not listen to the diversity police. It is better to know the facts, and work with your hands. These elite? Don’t be them.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments