Flat White New Zealand

Heading towards dystopia – what happened to New Zealand?

16 December 2021

4:00 AM

16 December 2021

4:00 AM

In the clash between authoritarianism and democracy, we know what is winning hands down.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, far-left on the political spectrum, is markedly anti-democratic. Her glib call for ‘inclusiveness’ while actively promoting the opposite – separatist, racist policies which virtually establish a ruling class of powerful and wealthy iwi (part-Maori, quasi-tribal organisations) – is contradictory and divisive.

What is extraordinary is the apparent lack of opposition from members of her own Labour Party, which once stood for the rights of the man on the street. They fought for ordinary family people and some much-needed balance against the inevitable advantage the highly-placed and wealthy can bring to bear on political decision-making.

Like the former National Party leader John Key, who dominated his own party before suddenly resigning, Ardern is recognised as presiding over all decision-making. The inevitable result is a lack of strong debate within the Labour Party.

Although mainstream media publicly condemn what they denigrate as a ‘lack of party unity’ (except when they themselves decide to stir the pot on the question of leadership), it is healthy for members of any political party to vigorously debate, and even object to, the wishes of a determined leader.

Moreover, considering what many view as the damage done under Key’s tenure, there is a good case to be made that no party leader should hold this position for longer than a year – acting basically in the capacity of a chairman – and then be required to step down. Internal and private voting on important issues (for the majority to determine the party’s policy) would provide a far more democratic modus operandi.

A majority can be wrong, but as the brilliant Thomas Sowell warns, activist minorities can bully majorities. This is now happening in New Zealand, with Ardern’s support.

The naming of proposed legislation, new organisations, or the renaming of those long-standing ones, illustrates this point. The push to call our country Aotearoa, against strong majority opposition, is ongoing, as it is with He Puapua (the infamous proposal for virtual governance of this country by those of tribal descent). And what on earth is Oranga Tamariki? Apparently, it has two possible meanings, either Ministry for Vulnerable Children, or Ministry for All Children. How dense of the majority to not know which…


Maori-only names (which are often far from authentic) are prioritised. Activists persistently call for the renaming of streets and towns. Institutions such as Waka Kotahi, formerly the NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency), is coincidentally also opting for some of the least intelligent policy-making it could possibly choose.

The prescient George Orwell warned us that if you attack the language, you attack the culture.

By replacing the intelligible with what is unintelligible, it becomes far harder for a country to take on board what is actually happening. On the grounds of so-called ‘cultural sensitivity’, the culture of the majority is being displaced by the politics of racial identity, pushed by radicalised activists resenting our democratic tradition of rule by the majority.

What hope can we have for the National Party to vigorously oppose this white-anting of New Zealand? Will we return to a far more stable, cohesive, and happier society before a minority of permanently-aggrieved, racially-obsessed activists gain permanent political ascendancy?

Given that the unpopular Judith Collins has been replaced by Christopher Luxon, a lift in its poll rankings is likely. However, it is early days for a political novice who has not yet spent one term in Parliament.

Moreover, the fact Luxon is a John Key protégé does not necessarily augur well. There is growing resentment at former prominent politicians like Key poking their nose in on occasion, as it is with the by-no-means uncontroversial Jim Bolger (advocating Todd Muller for his short-lived tenure as party leader) and Helen Clark.

The thinking is widely held that those who have had their time at the top should resist any temptation to keep backing into the limelight.

The National Party may well have shot themselves in the foot by choosing Luxon, (former CEO of the pricey Air New Zealand) over Simon Bridges, (a born debater of superior parliamentary performance). In his first confrontation with the wily Ardern, Luxon’s was a lacklustre performance without the verve or confidence that might be expected of someone eager for the top job.

Moreover, the new National leader is already reneging on his support for the right of individuals to peacefully protest near abortion clinics – one more of the freedoms gradually being lost in this country. It was at least to the credit of the unfortunately pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia ACT leader, David Seymour, that he recognised their freedom to protest. Under a weasel definition of ‘safe zones’, Luxon is now reversing his stance, declining to answer when asked if he thought abortion was ‘murder’.

However, the ultimate fight against the truth of issues in this now benighted country is the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, incredibly passed with the entire support of the House – a total of 120 votes!

A change to the birth certificate process comes into effect in 18 months’ time. It will mean transgender, intersex, gender diverse, and so-called takatāpui people will no longer need proof of medical treatment or a Family Court declaration to change the sex listed on their birth certificate. Instead, they can apply for it to be changed on the basis of how they identify.

Not one of our members of parliament has challenged this dystopian madness, whereby something is declared as factual, regardless of its untruthfulness. Not one.

Rather than acclaiming our politicians with, ‘O brave new world, that has such people in it…’ do these questions need putting to them all?

How does it serve society for individuals to be able to deny objective reality(the actual truth) on their birth certificate, based on how they temporarily feel? Can you not see where this will lead – and what has already happened to us?

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close