- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, June 27, 2008

Keys' version of History - "First lesson in business, don't get emotional about a stock."

We may be many voices but ultimately we are one people. One of the unique things about New Zealand is that we are not a country that's come about through civil war or a lot of fighting internally. We're a country that peacefully came together - Maori and the Crown decided from both partners' side that it was in their interests to have a peaceful negotiation. That's what the Treaty was, a founding document - a development document - for New Zealand, and I think that we could work things out in a peaceful, sensible and mature way has actually been a defining part of New Zealand's history. It's very important, and it's important we honour that now.

Hmmmm, National claim Cullen said a similar thing, but Cullen was talking about the Parliamentary system, the Herald in possibly their most biased piece against the Labour Government this year makes it pretty clear which version of history they support. In the rest of the Prime interview Key does acknowledge the musket and land wars, but you get the real feeling that Key honestly sees the process as casually as he has spelt out, which as Idiot Savant points out on No Right Turn

But then, can we really blame him? He's simply repeating the myths he was told at school back in the 60's and 70's, an era when our education system wasn't exactly known for its accurate portrayal of New Zealand history.

…I think Savant is onto something here, but I think it goes beyond mere education I don’t think Key has an ideology, he says he didn’t have a position on the Spring Bok tour and I believe him, it wouldn’t have mattered to Key that a racist regime was playing Rugby in NZ, those aren’t considerations in the managed equations he runs inside his head. Likewise with Maori Seats, he has no problem calling for their abolition because he doesn’t see our shared history as a struggle for sovereignty and identity and all that entails, I think he sees the relationship as a managed process that needs risk removal, the Maori seats risk total dominance to the direction of NZ Incorporated and that simply must be removed. Certainly Keys version of history helps insulate his direction, but he is a ruthless operator minus the restrictions of ideology, he dumped those as too inefficient early in his State Housing upbringing, this is a multi-millionaire Merchant Banker who thrived and succeeded in the bowels of the financial worlds most spiteful and back-stabbingly greedy environment, and he did so without the constraints of a belief system, he is an evolved Gordon Gecko, charmingly ruthless with a gun for a smile.


At 27/6/08 10:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who gives a fuck? Very few people that's who. You try to whip this into a major scandal Bomber but the fact is that no one cares because there are more important things going on like the mismanaged economy now in recession - where is your scathing comment on Michale Cullen for that?

Where is your comment about Helen Clark's latest attack on democracy - the deliberate delaying of the smacking referendum for the bullshitiest of reasons? You just know that Bomber would be braying like a syphilitic donkey if over 300,000 people had signed a petition for one of his pet causes and a National govt denied a referendum because it wasn't politically convenient.

Bomber is nothing but a fat morbid obese fraud who doesn't give a fuck about democracy, prefering to sweep the hard toopics under the carpet.

Luckily all his braying about Key fails to convince anyone.

At 27/6/08 11:03 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you're basing these assertions on what evidence?

So whats the ideology of Helen Clark? Maybe we should check out Foreshore and Seabed Act together with the Electoral Funding Act to see what her motivations are or is that a little too inconvenient.

At 27/6/08 12:15 pm, Blogger Chris said...

Hey anonymous - I definitely give a fuck if our potential leader has little grasp of NZ history. The New Zealand Wars were an armed response to grievances that still exist. Surely our new leader should know about the history of these grievances unless he wants another civil war, or sustained political conflict with Maori.

Key's comments bode ill for the Maori Party which is saying that they will hold the balance of power after the election, and that they will work with National.

Bomber, do you ever think you go overboard with painting John Key as a caricature of capitalist-scum? It sounds like you're one step away from tying him to an international Jewish conspiracy.

At any rate, 'they' have a caricature of yourself which is equally unreasonable.

At 27/6/08 12:47 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris you seem to have missed the bit in the article that says that the "..transcript which shows he mentioned the Land Wars and land confiscations elsewhere in the interview."

Bomber seems to want ignore that bit too in his never ending quest to paint Key as Dr Satan, eater of babies. I suspect that this is born out of intense jealousy due to the fact that Key actually has working class background unlike Bombers comfortable middles class one, and the fact that Key is very successful now rising above his station as it were - how dare this working class shit presume to become our Prime Minister!

At 27/6/08 1:03 pm, Blogger greymouth said...

I have mixed feelings about much of this...personally I think Key is probably no better than Helen Clark in terms of shonky political activities.

But two things stick out to me; first, being educated in the 1960's does not excuse one from an obligation to get up to date on the issues as they stand today. And I doubt he is lacking - he would have had advice on these issues and many more. Boy will Treasury be surprised when they learn they are operating on the Pound! Seriously though, Key should know his shit.

But then i wonder, why does he not appear to know his shit? I seem to recall, from my dodgy 5th form history education in the shittest school in NZ in the 90's, an estimate from the British government that put a sum on how much it would cost to wipe out the native people of NZ. Basically, it was too pricey. Should come as no surprise, everyone was doing it, back in the day. Colonisation was a rude enterprise.

More concerning is that I get the impression Key DOES overlook history as being somewhat irrelevant. History tells you so much about why people make the economic choices they do - why people jones over living in suburbia for instance, the cars they buy, the shit they eat. Everything.

And lastly, to the person who referred to Bomber as 'obese'. You are just being dumb.

At 27/6/08 1:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BMI = Weight in kg divided by (height in metres x heigh in metres)

BMI over 30 = Obese

Whether or not Bomber is obese is completely off topic.

On a personal level I don't like John Key, I don't think he has anyones interests at heart other than his own and business elites. As far as I can tell he has no morals or core values and his shark like eyes freak me out.

I hope to hell he doesn't get in, though it is looking likely. Still thats 'democracy'.


At 27/6/08 1:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the opinion of an obese person count for less than that of a healthy weight person.

I wonder if you averaged out the weight of the National and Labour MPs who would weigh the least? National have Brownlee who looks like he's been stealing from the biscuit tin regularly. But Labour have Horomia who could be a stunt double for Jabba the Hutt.


At 27/6/08 2:03 pm, Blogger Chris said...

I think Argox has struck what would be an awesome Victorian-style-eugenics analysis of politics; that is political views are related to BMI. Definite potential there, just collect some data and run it through a regression analysis.

If we throw in some rational choice theory... Labour MP's have a higher BMI because they believe in a welfare state which will take care of their health problems? Whereas National MP's are attempting to limit said welfare-state and thus have more interest in keeping trim?

At 27/6/08 2:05 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you guys not know that Helen Mugabe is Bombers Mother , well they all look the same and act the same after all dont they.
Bomber is not Obese, He is just a fat old tub of Timmy Selwyns Shit and Lard.

At 27/6/08 6:15 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

braying like a syphilitic donkey


At 27/6/08 10:55 pm, Blogger Darren Rickard said...

What Key was talking about was the period up to and around the signing of the treaty.

It was a peaceful time.

Our "wars" came in the 1850s-70s. These are basic facts that you and the left constantly ignore.

Labour in fact was the inaccurate and misleading party and it has clearly blown up in their face today faster than a smack to the head with a 400,000 signature democratic petition.

Great way to transfer the headlines though.

Democracy and the trampling of it isn't that easy to bury though.

At 27/6/08 11:19 pm, Anonymous Grant said...

John Key went to school in the mid seventies. He didn't do history - and eben if he did he would have learnt more about the unification of Germnay in the 1840's than what was going on here. At Varsity he did business admin, economics, accountancy. He left the country in the early 80"s and did not return til 1999 ..he doesn't have a clue about maori, the treaty, and tho he may be trying to pick it up there will always be holes in his perceptions.

Speaking of holes in perceptions - just because a few thousand people are conned into thinking the "smacking bill" prevents them from disciplining their children, does the govt reaslly ahve to waste all that money re-confirming the law. The "smacking bill" is about stopping idiots abusing their children ...how many times does that have to be said?

At 27/6/08 11:27 pm, Blogger Darren Rickard said...

Grant, the facts are that what Key was talking about was true!!

Cullen, Clark et al were the ones that got it wrong re Maaaooori history.

The Majority of Kiwis don't want the "anti smacking law" that is what the petition and referendum is about.

It is democracy, something we in New Zealand need but don't have right now.

At 28/6/08 2:25 am, Blogger Hated By Most said...

Sorry to put to you Darren you only part right, if Keys was referring to the times before the signing of the treaty in 1940, then a mention of the letter sent to Governor Hobson in 1839 mentions that there were some contention amongst the Native of Aotearoa, as crooked deals were being sort to buy land from the natives (Maori)as the privy council referred to them (the buyer, the dealers) as people of doubtful character, convicts the have escape there penal colonies.. It was due to these contentions between Maori and colonists, Maori sort UTU, for being rip-off. Sure granted in was not a full war, but it was neither a time peace as you put it.

At 28/6/08 5:57 am, Anonymous Legio X said...

Oh look, there's 2 syphilitic donkeys now.

At 28/6/08 1:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Clint.

At 28/6/08 3:14 pm, Blogger Hated By Most said...

Legio X said...
Oh look, there's 2 syphilitic donkeys now.

Legio you should never say that shit about yourself, your SPINNER for sure, but a "syphilitic donkey" well that's just to much, don't you have any pride boy? But if you want to say that, shezzz who am I to stand in your way. Forward legio

At 29/6/08 10:15 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh great, hatard is back, more scratched record bullshit.....

The "smacking bill" is about stopping idiots abusing their children ...how many times does that have to be said?

What a blind deluded fool, do really think the anti-smacking bill is going to stop the sort of people who put their kids in to tumble dryers like Nia Glassie? Do you think the anti-smacking bill would have saved Chris and Cru Kahui from their evil indolent retard thug family?
Tou are the idiot here, the anti-smaking bill will never stop the sort of people who think it's okay to punch, kick and burn their kids - how many time does it have to be said?

At 29/6/08 8:07 pm, Anonymous Grant said...

Whoah, sorry for speaking out there Mr. Do you feel an urge to punch someone ? ... As with every piece of social policy, the new law creates a legal barrier against those who quietly think beating their kids it might be ok, and confirms the beliefs of those who are already sure its not. With most laws, eventually society comes to a collective conclusion that either the law is an ass, or the law is sensible. In this case, eventually, the society will accept that beating children is not acceptable and that this belief needs to be instilled and upheld in the laws of the land. To suggest that because there will be people who ignore the law, we should not have it passed, is not a credible position - in this, or any other situation - is not a logical position. Take stealing cars (for example) - it is illegal - cos society thinks its a pain in the neck. Doesn't stop people stealing cars, just stops them stealing so many ..eh.

At 29/6/08 9:23 pm, Blogger Nepenthe said...

...there are more important things going on like the mismanaged economy now in recession - where is your scathing comment on Michale Cullen for that?

We are not in recession yet fool. One quarter of negative growth does not make a recession. Remember that under national in the nineties we had two years of recession. Why don't you have a look at the statistics on the economy over this decade and compare it to the nineties then you might see how much better this economy has been managed under labour. What about wages? That's one thing you tories never want to talk about because the wage growth over this decade compared to the stagnation under national in the nineties is an embarassment to you. Or maybe you don't care afterall John Key did say: "We would love to see wages drop."

The Majority of Kiwis don't want the "anti smacking law" that is what the petition and referendum is about.

No. The petition is not about a majority of Kiwis. That's is what a referenda is about if you get enough votes (which you "it's my god given right to beat my child" bible bashers won't). Remember this legislation was about removing a defense which allowed parents like the mother who beat her son with a horsewhip to get off. But maybe you want to have that defense available to you Darren. I can't imagine why. You will get a referendum though, but you won't get it at the time of the election. The ministry of justice advised against holding the referndum concurrent with the election because after the 1999 election they know that there would confusion, congestion and delays at the polling places and they would need more polling staff. Also it could delay the parliamentary count. Holding a postal ballot may be cheaper than running it at the same time as the election anyway. Woops, I forgot you tories don't care about how much tax payer dollar the goverment spends. Hardly an affront to democracy and remember we have nonbinding referenda anyway.

At 29/6/08 11:17 pm, Blogger Darren Rickard said...


the size of the petition against the vile anti smacking law clearly shows that a majority of Kiwis disagree with Clark and Heffer Bradford.

This has been repeated with countless polls and letters to editors,talkback and Labour losing political polls.

For people like yourself and Clark to add insult to injury and deny a democratic process by allowing a referendum to go ahead at the 2008 election simply because of political survival and because you think voters will be "confused" is condescending at best.

The fact that it will cost taxpayers millions more to have a separate vote is something that Clark and Cullen have gotten used to.

Its taxpayers money and they just don't care how much of it is mis spent.

At 30/6/08 7:48 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doesn't stop people stealing cars, just stops them stealing so many ..eh.

So child abuse rates have dropped since the introduction of anti-smacking laws? Care to back that up?

We are not in recession yet fool. One quarter of negative growth does not make a recession We'll see who the fool is at the release of next quaters figures won't, your pinning all your hopes some massive turnaround in the next couple of months, what an idiot.

At 30/6/08 9:08 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the basis of peoples opposition is that it doesn't stop people smacking their children?

Well in that case, better legalise rape, murder, paedophilia etc...
because they are illegal, yet people still commit those crimes.

Men used to be able to rape and assault their wives, thankfully we see those actions now as abhorrent, and hopefully in the future we will view assaulting our children as an outdated practice as well.
Fighting for your right to beat, sorry discipline your children is quite sad.

The whole world is entering one, how do you think the Government in NZ could prevent it?
Such naivity.


Post a Comment

<< Home