 |
| Redefining Our Terms: “When an angry majority is demanding change, defending the status-quo is an extremist position.” |
“WHAT’S THIS?”, asked Laurie, eyeing suspiciously the two glasses of red wine deposited in front of him.
“A nice drop of red. I thought you’d be keen to celebrate the French Far-Right’s victory with the appropriate tipple. And with Labour poised to reclaim Number Ten, after 14 long years of Tory rule, I thought red was the appropriate colour.”
“What? This is French?” Laurie sniffed the wine and swirled it around his glass with professional aplomb.”
“Well, no, not exactly. I asked Hannah behind the bar if the pub ran to a good Bordeaux, and she gave me one of her you-cannot-be-that-stupid stares.
“Does this place look like it runs to a good Bordeaux, Les? Or does it look like the sort of place that will offer you a nice Central Otago Pinot Noir and expect you to like it?”
Laurie took a tentative sip. “Not too bad. Not too bad at all. Thanks, Les.”
Laurie lifted his glass. “Here’s to Marine Le Pen and her toy-boy. And confusion to Emmanuel Macron’s centrists and the not-as-popular-as-the-National-Rally Left.”
Les saluted his friend with his own glass. “And here’s to Sir Keir Starmer – may he surprise us all!”
“That’s not very likely though, is it Les? Not when Starmer stands further to the right than Tony Blair.”
“I know, I know. The man makes a concrete block look animated. But that is what it takes these days to wring an endorsement out of Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times. Britons simply refuse to elect Labour leaders who promise anything more radical than a warmed-over status quo. And, even then, the Tories need to have well-and-truly outstayed their welcome. Tony Blair may have led Labour to a landslide victory in 1997, but it had been an excruciating 18 years between drinks.”
“Do you think Starmer’s winning margin will outstrip even Blair’s 1997 majority?”
“It might, yeah. But, in practical terms, it hardly matters. Rishi Sunak is doing his best to spook the voters with talk of a Labour ‘super-majority’ – as if the British Parliament operates according to the same rules as the Indian Parliament, where two-thirds of the legislators can change the Constitution.”
“But the UK doesn’t have a written constitution.”
“Congratulations, Laurie! You know more about the British political system than the present British Prime Minister!”
“I’ll tell you something else I know. It’s well past time that all you smug lefties stopped labelling parties like the National Rally and the Alternative For Germany ‘Far Right’.”
“Awh, come on, mate. What else are they?”
“Well, the National Rally is the most popular political party in France, and the AfD is the second most popular party in Germany.
“So, if you’re going to use the metaphor of a spectrum, then anything you call “far” has to be located at its extremes, and it has to be small.
“When Marine Le Pen’s father – who was, unquestionably, an extremist – was the leader of the National Front, back in the 1970s and 80s, he attracted barely 1 percent of the presidential vote. Clearly, the French people agreed that the Front belonged on the fringes of their politics.
“But, that is no longer true – is it? Otherwise, 34 percent of French voters would not have marked their ballots for the National Rally. A political movement that attracts over a third of the electorate is not ‘far’ anything. It is proof that the ideological and electoral preferences of the population have undergone a decisive shift.
“For goodness sake, in Germany the AfD is currently attracting more support than the governing Social-Democrats. Those we used to locate at the extremes are advancing steadily towards the centre-ground. They’re not far away from the majority’s comfort-zone anymore. In fact, they’re a lot closer to it than you lefties think.”
“Jeez, Laurie. Hitler’s Nazi’s topped-out in 1932 with 37 percent of the popular vote. Are you seriously trying to convince me that Nazism wasn’t a movement of the Far Right?”
“What I’m telling you, Les, is that when the political environment changes to the point where a party that once attracted less than 5 percent voter support is now gathering-up more than a third of the electorate, then the time has come for a major redefinition of political terms.
“When an angry majority is demanding change, defending the status-quo is an extremist position.”
This short story was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 5 July 2024.
20 comments:
There seems a significant lack of empathy from your aging boomers. We presume Laurie and Les represent the generation who's fathers fought in 'the war'. As such, the understanding of what is or is not 'far right' starts not with the populous, but with the marginalized.
As a social democrat, the starting point is the impact on those most vulnerable, whether through economic marginalization or social marginalization. This requires a view of those within a nation, not those define through nationalism. France is a pluralistic society, with remarkably conformist infrastructure (eg. schools will all teach exactly the same lesson to a year group the same time throughout the republic). It includes up to 5.7million (8.6%) identified as Muslim, this is expected to be 17% by 2050. This does not include those that are first second or third generation from other non-European countries that do not identify with Islamic religion. The price of empire.
Chris' surrogates, Laurie and Less, have talked over the rights of these people - despite a population greater than their own country. This also excludes those in other marginalized positions, whether through gendered (including the position of women in society) or sexual identity or psychical or intellectual disability. Indeed, those that these antipodean observers see as quintessentially French seems more attune to the British sitcom 'Allo 'Allo! than modern France.
If we are looking at, or grading along a spectrum, political parties of the right, any one with a hint of social justice must start from an empathetic view towards the marginalized and the threat to them. Far right is a correct term.
In this, the French recognized that a threat to the most vulnerable French, is a threat to all. The centre joined with the progressive left to keep the far right out. They rose to meet the threat, and reduced the far right to the third party. Viva la France.
It is probably also responding to the throw away line - "Starmer stands further to the right than Tony Blair.” This does not seem grounded on much. I think the jury is out on whether Starmer's "changed Labour" will be better or worse than Blair's "new Labour", but the talk and appointments is of a reset from the level of neoliberalism of the Tories. Appointments and initiatives on housing and employment law as well as some devolution and House of Lords reforms seem positive. Discussion of reformed tax policy needs detail, but is at least on the table. Engagement with Europe, commitment to the European Court of Human Rights and abandonment of the constitutional abomination that was the Rwanda scheme all give some optimism. The King's speech (not the movie) should give illumination to the direction the Starmer government will go.
Britain is broken. It is direction and rebuilding that is important. Because of economic constraints the changes may be more incremental that many of us would want, but Blair not only went right, but failed to future proof any of the few progressive changes his government made. In the darkest of times even beige can seem bright.
I must say that I get exasperated when parties that attract over 30% of the vote are labelled "far right" or as some in France did, describe them as fascist. We heard that term from a supposed political commentator (as opposed to activist) on RNZ after the first round in France. We never heard from him again, so I guess RNZ recognised the problem.
I have looked at the policy prescriptions of the various parties. They are certainly populist and want to reduce immigration. In that regard, they are not much different to NZ First, Reform and the Republicans. Are these three parties far right?
Of course the usual Nazi analogy comes up. Are any of these parties remotely Nazi?
I think not. We can be pretty certain, should any of them form the government, that there will be a next election. Although will there be a peaceful transfer of power in a finely balanced outcome?
For instance, would VP Vance certify a Democrat win in 2028?
I would hope the answer is "yes", and that if necessary the courts will act impartially. They did in 2020.
So the French and Finnish Communists, during their post-war glory days, weren't Far Left? Bearing in mind, we're talking the era of Stalinist French Communists, rather than the moderate Eurocommunism the Italians ended up with.
The fact you've got your characters toasting fascists really does show how much you've drifted, Mr Trotter. Can you imagine what your younger self would have thought?
A land of Milk and Honey - Sue Abel
p108 - The Asianisation of Aotearoa - Paul Spoonley
The exclusive nationalism of New Zealand colonialism had an inward focus - on Maori - and an outward one that targeted all non-British arrivals or residents, particularly Asians.
What other type of nationalism is there. To express different phenotypes we might also have a lot in common that gives us our identity? "Maorification" is an attempt by Mother Superior to take our toys away.
As (own goaled in RNZ's A Slice of Heaven Ali's Pakistani father and Roseanne's Chinese father were welcomed into Christchurch, but then Winston stirred the population up.
The inference is that what pertains at the individual level extrapolates to the national identity: which is what it is all about.
As my former neighbor put it: "the Wongs are lovely people"; people want good neighbors (which requires a local affinity).
Nationally, super-diversity is largely characterised by the significance of the Maori population (demographically and in terms of unique political status), and the fact that a quarter of New Zealanders have been born in another country.
Superdiversity and globalisation are presented as natural occurrences as though the caterpillar forms a pupae and becomes a butterfly.
Globalisation is regional (Harcourts Shanghai; Auckland Chamber of Commerce | Japan and it's trading companies)
Superdiversity is a Derridean tactic ("slippery slogan" and "theoretical cul-de-sac'):
The slogan does indeed have strategic purchase – it is a convenient euphemism that hits the spot with European funding and governing bodies, concerned about the new migration and the management of ethnolinguistic diversity.
But then again politicians are notorious for their predilection for euphemisms and weasel words, astroturfing and doublespeak. Aneta Pavlenko - Superdiversity and why it isn't.
one of the things we were two things we want to do one is to visualize it so how do we communicate this to non-academic to complex next story about how do we communicate it to a non-academic um non-academic audiences and then how do we capture that um that complexity Big Data then provide it with provide particularly policy communities media communities was something that we can talk to them about in the way that tries to take out some of the politicization of of immigration um and of course the point here is that as the state has become very involved and of course I'm I now accept some responsibility for this I think one of the interesting dimensions and I want to..
https://youtu.be/pqGnBip9QR0?t=1680
Well, actually, the UK does have a written constitution ... sort of. It's called a Constitution of Laws. New Zealand has one as well. Such a constitution can of course be amended (micro-managed) by a simple majority in the House of Representatives in this country. Of course in a bicameral legislature the process is a deal more complicated.
'Sir' (puke!) Keir Starmer and his Tory Lite 'Labour Party' was not ushered into the Government benches by an enthusiastic following; rather, the Tories were pitchforked out by an electorate whose rage has been mounting year by year ever since Tony Bliar betrayed his following. With a declining voter support, Labour hosed in with a thumping majority - who would have thought? If ever you wanted an illustration that, even in politics Nature abhors a vacuum, there you have it.
Keir Starmer is on notice: do something useful, and damned sharpish, or you'll be carted off to the same dog tucker factory to which we have just consigned Rishi Sunak and his pals.
Someone ought to has whispered in Emanuel Macron's shell-like: 'Be careful what you wish for.' He and his Party gamed the system outrageously - and got a well-earned kick in the teeth. Now France has the prospect of some kind of 'alliance' of the 'Far Left' (yeah, right) and the 'Far Right' (well, what's left?), with Macron's Mob doing the King Lear thing in the wilderness.
You have to admit: if you enjoy black comedy, the brattish, kiddies in a sandbox style favoured by Western politics is bally entertaining. Maybe that's the point. Skimping on the bread, they have to supply the circuses.
Cheers,
Ion A. Dowman
To: DS @ 22:28 16/7/24
You have missed the point entirely, DS.
Back in the early post-war years, following the global conflict in which Stalin had fought on the side of the victorious capitalist Allies (after a brief stint as the ally of Nazi Germany) and communists had supplied the backbone of the resistance to Nazi occupiers across Europe, the Communist Parties of France and Italy were not regarded as "far" anything. They were major electoral players - and treated as such.
Had the CPF and the CPI been on the far margins of their respective countries' politics the Americans would not have gone to such extreme lengths to prevent them taking control by democratic means.
Introducing the word "far" to any political discussion indicates one of two things: either the force being described is numerically and electorally insignificant, or it is being singled-out as an ideological and political risk. The first option involves political science, the second is pure propaganda.
To: DS @ 22:28 16/7/24
You have missed the point entirely, DS.
Back in the early post-war years, following the global conflict in which Stalin had fought on the side of the victorious capitalist Allies (after a brief stint as the ally of Nazi Germany) and communists had supplied the backbone of the resistance to Nazi occupiers across Europe, the Communist Parties of France and Italy were not regarded as "far" anything. They were major electoral players - and treated as such.
Had the CPF and the CPI been on the far margins of their respective countries' politics the Americans would not have gone to such extreme lengths to prevent them taking control by democratic means.
Introducing the word "far" to any political discussion indicates one of two things: either the force being described is numerically and electorally insignificant, or it is being singled-out as an ideological and political risk. The first option involves political science, the second is pure propaganda.
1. The rejection of democracy, the rule of law and equal rights under the law in favor of a strongman who interprets the popular will.
2. The galvanizing of popular rage against cultural elites.
3. Nationalism based on a dominant “superior” race and historic bloodlines.
4. Extolling brute strength and heroic warriors.
5. Disdain of women and fear of non-standard gender identities or sexual orientation.
Five elements of fascism – Robert Reich
Seems to fit Trump – and VP Vance.
I have tried, and failed, to find a definition of 'far right' which suggests it can only apply to the "numerically and electorally insignificant". The best general definition available is -
"Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies."
Others are a variation on this. What is clear is the position on a spectrum of political views. There is no magical percentage of the populous in which those views are relabeled. Whether 3% or 30% the views remain on the spectrum. Nowhere is 29.5% 'far' right and 30% 'centre' right. It is an ideology, and one that proponents are often proud to acclaim.
Consider what the Baron is saying:
There seems a significant lack of empathy from your aging boomers. We presume Laurie and Les represent the generation who's fathers fought in 'the war'. As such, the understanding of what is or is not 'far right' starts not with the populous, but with the marginalized.
The French or Anglo Brits or Japanese or Koreans or Chinese or European NZrs think that they are top dogs: their identity is the identity of the the nation but this identity oppresses other groups and needs to be deconstructed.
The Social Psychology of Social (Dis)harmony: Implications for Political Leaders and Public Policy
Luisa Batalha, Katherine J. Reynolds & Emina Subasic
Australian National University
This work thus suggests that for multiculturalism to succeed identities need to be transformed. And, importantly, as Kymlicka suggests, this transformation applies not only to the minority but also to the majority. Indeed, perhaps the major identity transformation is required from members of the majority as their attributes are, as a rule, the same as the ones that define the national identity. Minorities need to be written into the self-definition of the national identity such as to imbue them with existential legitimacy as citizens in parity with the majority.
A national identity that is defined in civic terms tends to be more inclusive of ethnic diversity than an ethnically defined one. It also suggests that when members of the dominant majority identify with a civic content-based group identity they would tend to project less their ingroup attributes onto a superordinate national category.
Such civic definitions serve to place the majority group as a sub-group within the system of intergroup relations, which allows for a new identity to emerge. Legitimacy and status as members of the new community are then less likely to be defined by ethnicity. Such civic based definitions also shape sub-group relations such that ethnically-defined difference becomes less relevant to the community as a whole.
In a multiethnic/multicultural society, the shift from an exclusive to an inclusive definition of the national prototype requires the emergence of new and consistent discourses about who ‘we’ are (see Kymlicka, 1995). Discourses that do not appeal to ethnic heritage and traditions but to civic values. It is in this context that the role of political leadership comes into place in changing the discourse and creating a consensual view of the national prototype such that it becomes shared by the members of a polity (see Uberoi & Modood, 2013). Moreover, there needs to be an institutionalisation of the public discourse as in line with terms outlined by Parekh (2006).
As a social democrat, the starting point is the impact on those most vulnerable, whether through economic marginalization or social marginalization. This requires a view of those within a nation, not those define through nationalism. France is a pluralistic society, with remarkably conformist infrastructure (eg. schools will all teach exactly the same lesson to a year group the same time throughout the republic). It includes up to 5.7million (8.6%) identified as Muslim, this is expected to be 17% by 2050. This does not include those that are first second or third generation from other non-European countries that do not identify with Islamic religion. The price of empire.
Where does power lie here: the starting point is; ("pakeha shall loose hegemony")?. Only types who attend the He Whenua Taurikura Freak Show agree?
The reason for the French electoral result was that global business sided with the global left. I forget how many votes Le Pen got but she won the popular vote and her support is climbing. The left have the universities and the media they are the smaller but organised; global business has money and expertise. [cont]
The Baron's perspective can be seen in Paul Spoonleys Racism and Ethnicity (part of a "Critical Series" edited by him and Steve Maharey.
This is scholarship that (itself) needs a big fat critique, if counter opinion would be welcome in the current academic atmosphere (Jon Haidt describes Social Psychology as a "Tribal Moral Society"). Movements need their intellectuals, if the academic priesthood will let them get a leg in, only then will ideas have a receptive audience. To get your point across you have to know it well.
Spoonley says racism is a product of scientific classification and Darwinism and must involve power. He extends that to as when we look at the exhibits in the museum at those "stone age Maori". European colonists are primarily motivated by self interest (who isn't?) and all think the same (no one argues at the dinner table or muses creatively).
He defines minority and ethnic group in relation to hegemonic oppression by a majority.
Whiteness is thinking what the European coloniser does is best. Minorities who are not doing as well are oppressed by whiteness. They are either suffering from colonial exploitation or are unable to perform within their own culture. Assimilation, therefore, is a dirty word. Embedded in the idea is Capitalist accumulation, whereby migrants are a "reserve army" (presumably this is part of the motivation for open borders).
Culture can and should be manipulated, as Julie Zhu (21year old migrant from X'ian, China) opines to an approving Paul Spoonley: "I feel that sort of positioning of Pakeha and everyone else. I would think of the ideal as Maori and everyone else because Maori are kind of the only unique aspect of NZ that really needs to be upheld if we are to move forward and I think there just needs to be solidarity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L48arOFzU8&t=454s
If racial categorization is the cause of the problem and cultures are fluff, then the expert is free to sit up in his satellite and organise everything. This is the result of a Blank Slate ideology.
Paul Spoonley spends the winter in a French Village (as you do) is joined at the hip to NZ's super wealthy globalists. "No one has more to laud immigration (especially from Asia) than I have" - property billionaire Bob Jones.
We should be careful in political terms. Fringe views and parties is not the same as far right or left. These should not be interchangeable.
To: Guerilla Surgeon.
WELCOME BACK!
We've missed your contributions.
Thank you JH for a lengthy and considered critique.
I will respond to the issue of 'Pakeha hegemony'. This has always been defined in relation to appropriation. Towards the turn of the 20th century, names of children and farms were often influenced by te reo Maori. See any Pakeha youth on their OE, and you see pounamu and ko iwi pendants, you hear 'kia ora' and see haka. Part of the appropriation is that we have emerged from a national identity which was dependent on the better colonizer myth. We were not Australia, North American, South Africa or Rhodesia. Belich saw this as the better Britain / better native projection. As with any dichotomy, it is limited in pluralism.
If Pakeha, the hegemony gets challenged within your proximity, wealth and interaction with Maori and other non-Pakeha. Since the late 1960s, the challenge of NZs hegemony has gone beyond the appropriation and for many bicultural and multicultural models are not theory, but lived reality. Before this government, challenged through this government and likely naturalized after this government is a trend that even institutions must reflect that which is Maori and accommodate Pasifika and new migrant societies.
This will only escalate. Pakeha are not the majority in Auckland schools but the largest minority. The 'aging boomers' that have relied on the view of Pakeha hegemony find themselves at a demographic disadvantage. The pensions and institutions they rely on will have an increasingly browning work force and tax take. It makes sense to be inclusive not exclusive.
As for France, as late as Napoleon III cultures and languages throughout the nation of France differed greatly. Whether it is sustainable of not, the French have been able to include pluralism into their national identity, while maintaining a chauvinist view of 'the other'. I look forward to the Olympic surfing off the French coast in the Pacific.
GS
1. I don’t think Trump is some dark obsessive figure. As Larry King says “Donald is great fun to go out with; but not pres-i-dent!”
2. Absolutely justified.
3. So Japan, Korea and China are fascist?
Whatever you have in mind (as opposition to nationalism) it is a non-starter.
We know who we are by who we are not. What happens is that the border becomes (informally) within society. Elites like John Key, Paul Spoonley, Bob Jones and Helen Clark can take advantage of it, but ethnic groups formed because humans are competition to other humans.
John Key: “I’m pro-migration because, think what it takes for another person to leave their country and come here”; “there may have to be a bit of density”. In reality they are the wealthy middle classes of China and India escaping a degraded environment and over crowding and forcing it on us. UK is suffering the same fate.
Minorities happily become part of the hegemonic majority – it is middle class Maori RNZ trot out who want a performative separation. Collin who drove the Habgoods truck and wanted nothing more out of life than “a farm on the [West] coast” had much in common with your workingclass Maori. The lifestyle and country side (including the quarter acre) are as much emblematic of New Zealandness as the Meeting House and cabbage tree.
4. People may appear modern but they see themselves reflected in the deeds of their ancestors – that is healthy and every ethnic group does it. There is an online simulation of 3 evolutionary strategies a. Altruism b. Free loading c. Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism wins everytime (staying alive is a team sport).
5. That’s just rubbish. Women are idolised as mothers; feminisms main points have been taken on board; gender is a matter of negative versus positive liberty. As Harry (Bluestar Cabbie of the Year) said “I have a friend who changed sex”. He put that one tidily in a draw but he didn’t put it on the mantlepiece.
Barron re pakeha shall loose hegemony
the argument is assumed rather than made. It is assumed Kelsey, Pihama, Spoonley, Moana Jackson (late), must know something (they have an esoteric argument but there must be something to it).
You can't compare karakia with the organic invocations to the Christian God. The former is a top-down (and coercive), cultural intervention and a violation of peoples right to self-determination. The authority (again) filters back to the Klingon Professors of He Whenua Taurikura infamy (mind you the Beagle Boy developers don't mind that hegemonic block being somewhat restrained").
Introducing post-colonialism to children suffers from the same weaknesses as arguments for pedophilia.
I'm not sure it wasn't just a sudden rush of blood to the head Chris – but maybe I could put the accusation and non-apology aside. But when Wayne Mapp, one of the few conservatives I think sometimes talk sense is so sure about JD Vance's willingness to hand over power in the event of an electoral loss, then he either hasn't been keeping up with US politics, or he's one of them, and we're all buggered.
" So Japan, Korea and China are fascist?"
To be fair it's not my definition but I think the idea is that you need to conform to all of those before you are considered fascist. People in Japan Korea and China can be somewhat convinced of their ethnic superiority, (I have personal experience with two of these) but don't necessarily conform to any or all of the others.
It's not the only definition of fascism, but it is convenient because it's a lot shorter than most of the others. And Robert Reich is a very intelligent guy. I respect his opinion about US politics very much. He considers Trump a fascist and that's pretty much good enough for me. His reasons for this are on his substack if you are interested.
And before anyone says it – yes I know Vance is married to an ethnic Indian. But you can be married to an ethnic Indian and still be racist.
JH - Your comment regarding karakia and the Christian God is at best curious. I presume you have awareness of the history of Christianity in NZ, the Pacific and East Asia. After the toiling of European missionaries, trained and untrained Maori missionaries converted the bulk of Maori. John Williams was the first missionary in Samoa, but it was not until the Missionary society sent Cook Island missionaries Christianity spread. Even so, with both NZ and Samoa it was absorbed into local belief systems, cultural needs and social change. It is often commented that Samoa was not Christianised, but Christianity was Samoanised. The syncretism was what defined Pacific Christianity. This is not only reflected in Churches such as Ringatu and Ratana, but has an affect to mainstream churches, the obvious is the Treaty based structuring of the Anglican church.
The same may be said of Christianity in both Korea and the Philippines. They have fitted a niche within those societies. None of this is 'top down'.
Any survey of those attending and active within churches in NZ today is aware that the Pakeha congregations are grey haired or blue rinse with a few very smiley youths. The Christian churches in NZ are Pasifika, Korean and Filipino, with Maori church organisations and rural Maori churches still engaged.
It is highly probable the most common attempt to communicate with the spiritual in NZ is through various forms of karakia in te reo. I guess your Christian God is not THE Christian God. The Christian bible is one in which scripture is emphasised or deprioritised, or simply abandoned according to personal empowerment within a power structure. Your interpretation will create and exploit identity politics to marginalise others and form an exclusion zone from which you derive a personal and social position.
I suggest rather than claim a sense of superiority over how others express spiritual culture, you first self-analyze your own space and motivations.
The Barron, It isn't about the spiritual, it is about the cultural and that is about identity, group belonging, trust and survival.
That's important because the public needs to feel the government is in it for them.
They aren't.
John Key visits Oxford; he chat's to the men playing pool at the pub (or club?); he comes back. He remembers X's name and shouts everyone a drink. Meanwhile "I'm pro-migration. The reason I'm pro-migration is, think what it takes to move countries"; "there may have to be some density". Meanwhile the Key family plan is a property empire (father and son discussed this while on holiday in Italy - as you do - at the five star hotel). Jacinda is no different: she sees her future as "having a lovely time (somewhere in the Mediterranean)".
I'm old enough to remember recessions and the shame of not having a job and (in meritocratic society) the ups and downs to status.
The shocks have smoothed out thanks to Natbours inflow of household wealth from India and China's middle classes. If this were cut off we would see that they are the new middle classes while more of us, are in a state where NZ is where it could have been (optimal ratio of people to resources) minus where we are now. [Keith Locke's (and others) contribution to the Greens was to dissociate them from ecology and well-being as part of a universalist ideology].
Avoiding the Key's, Clarks and Arderns is why a strong identity is important. It will take a while but (like Auckland's house prices) an awareness of cultural socialism will grow; it will again be about class. Dissenters will simply be suppressed; they will stop praising diversity; the progressives will loose their mojo but the Key's and Chows won't loose theirs.
GS.
On fascism: appeal to authority. Timothy Garton Ash in four hours of discussion suggests his interlocutor is using fascism as a noun and so you look at the person's actions: "are they fascist". Genocides based around universalist ideologies are just as common as ethnic.
Post a Comment