Friday, September 12, 2014

Reuben Chapple: "Rednecks" and their discontents


“Redneck” is an imported American term that has no place in New Zealand’s public discourse. 

It refers to “poor Southern white trash”, who before the American Civil War, were the overseer class on the estates owned by rich planters. They’d sat on horses toting whips and guns, overseeing black slaves as they went about their work in the cotton fields.

After the slaves were freed, this white overseer class was reduced to manual labour, typically eking out a subsistence-level existence as sharecroppers in much the same manner as the freed slaves who’d elected to remain in the South.

Long hours bending over in the hot sun meant white necks soon turned red, and the term “redneck” was coined to describe the blind, reflexive racial bigotry of those who resented the loss of their former status.

If we’re going to import pejorative terms from other countries, it seems entirely fair to deploy another common American slur,  “Wigger”, as a counterpoint to “Redneck.”

A Wigger is someone who rats out their own race for the warm glow that comes from lining up with a supposedly “oppressed” people.

Like all Western countries, New Zealand has a raft of these self-despising race-traitors -- both in our universities and amongst the tertiary-educated -- who have been helped by their Marxist lecturers to see that whites are to blame for all the evils of the world.

These are people who told us three decades ago that apartheid was a social and moral evil in South Africa. Now, they’re telling us it’s a social and moral good in New Zealand. Whether apartheid is to be decried or endorsed seems to be based entirely on the skin colour of its beneficiaries. Whites always deserve a good kicking.

Leftists despise their own culture. They’ve been schooled to hate Western civilisation and regard Western countries as racist, sexist, colonialist oppressors. They desperately want to see other cultures as somehow morally superior to our own.

They’re not. The Judeo-Christian culture that originated in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, then took root in Europe, is vastly superior to other cultures. Many non-whites have also benefited massively in adopting Western cultural norms and values. This fact is undeniable to anyone except a moron.

Judeo-Christian culture hasn’t always lived up to its own standards (Communism, Fascism, Crusaders, Conquistadores, the Inquisition, slavery, periodic discrimination against non-white or non-Christian minorities), but has always self-corrected due to the principled actions of people of goodwill who have identified and remedied these shortfalls. This culture has raised more people from poverty, ignorance, and barbarism than any other in world history. As such, it is to be celebrated, not denigrated.

Two Leftist-spawned currents operate in our country: multiculturalism and biculturalism.

These terms refer to a specific political ideology.

Multiculturalism is peddled by International Socialists who want to replace our Judeo-Christian culture with a global multiculture on which they intend to erect the One World Government that’s their end game. Along the way, they propose to rub everyone’s noses in “diversity” as some kind of twisted atonement for the West’s alleged white racist past. Everyone must be made to wear the hair shirt.

There’s an old saying with which all Westerners are familiar. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land. No  society can have more than one culture. Of course minorities should be free to practise their religion; to eat Kosher, Halal or other foods; and to celebrate Diwali, Chinese New Year, or Ramadan. But in matters affecting their relationship with the society in which they live, they must accept the rules and practices of their host culture.

Multiculturalism has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells newcomers who settle here: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. This is because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours. The evidence from European countries that are 30 years ahead of New Zealand in encouraging immigrant groups to self-segregate shows just how wrong-headed this approach actually is.

Then there’s biculturalism. Its promoters recognise and support the multicultural model referred to above, but claim that the cultural values of New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent identifying monoculturally as Maori should trump all others on the basis of ancestral longevity of some ancestors in the land.

Yet traditional Maori culture says that one should honour all ancestors equally, not raise some up, and trample down others.

I see no reason why Maori culture should be afforded an undeserved pre-eminence. By any objective standard, the sum total of its contribution to human felicity is an ugly, gesticulating, tongue-poking, eye-rolling, thigh-slapping war dance of limited curiosity value when deployed before a rugby match.

If anyone can show otherwise, let them step up to the plate.

Racism is often conflated by Leftists with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege and the belief that newcomers should be welcomed but required to conform to Judeo-Christian cultural norms is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice.

Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else solely on the basis of group membership.


I will leave it to readers to decide if NZ is a racist country, and if so, which group benefits from this racism. 

11 comments:

Jamie said...

Yea looks like a global communist infiltration of the West while my elders were asleep at their post. Education, welfare, immigration, defence, environmental, marriage, take ya pick.
Could be worse though, we could be in Britian getting chopped up by wannabe jihadi's, or the USA getting invaded by ISIS and the Mexican Mafia

Anonymous said...

Well said,

Stuart L.

Brian said...

Jamie,

Just what do you mean, invaded by ISIS! We have been infiltrated ever since the first Muslim set foot in this country.
As has been said before, there are "No Moderate Muslims", but there are Muslims who do not upset the status quo for the obvious reason that they are just a minority!
I will not be around when they pass the 5% threshold but you will be; and as in Britain, Auckland and towns with Muslim Ghettos will be no go enclaves of Sharia law.

By then it will too late, but the signs now are very evident, ignore them and New Zealand will pay the price.
Brian

Anonymous said...

You are 100% correct, Brian.

The evidence from other jurisdictions is that Muslims, in particular, have no long-term intention of integrating with the Judeo-Christian culture of the Western countries which have permitted them to take up residence.

Recent events surrounding an Auckland mosque, sparked by the banning by so-called “moderates” of an “extremist” Muslim cleric and his adherents, highlight what is only going to be a growing problem this country will have with Islam. Those seeking to disbar the hardliner are actually fighting a losing rearguard action for tolerance and pluralism as we shall see below.

When their numbers are few, Muslims tend to keep their heads down, other than establishing a visual presence by publicly wearing Islamic clothing. But once emboldened by increasing numbers of co-religionists, they will begin to assert what they regard as their rightful supremacy over non-Muslims, as set out in Islamic scripture.

Everywhere in the world we have seen that Muslims are only “peaceful” and “tolerant” until there are enough of them for the more pious and observant to encourage everyone else into flexing their religious muscles.

This occurs because Islam is not a Judeo-Christian “guilt-based” culture in which morality is personal and universalist (everyone must be treated the same), but a “shame-based” culture in which morality is collectivist and particularist (people are to be treated differently based on whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim).

Once Muslims have attained critical mass in a non-Muslim society, those who formerly wanted to just “get along” are “shamed” by those who more closely follow the original (intended) message of the Koran to self-segregate and wage war on infidels to get in behind this agenda.
RPC

paul scott said...

Reuben the term "redneck' also has comedic value, when you wear the label. I often go over to pompous, condescending writers like Chris Trotter, and say something like
"The New Zealand Rednecks Society passed a resolution, that you are writing claptrap"
It annoys them immensely.
When you take their pejoratives and wear them proudly they come out with more specific insults.

Trotter likes to call me brainless, stupid, because he has run out of fancy words which his brethren love.

Kerry said...

Well written and totally true

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

"If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land... Of course minorities should be free to practise their religion; to eat Kosher, Halal or other foods..."
There is a contradiction here in that the methods used to slaughter animals may contravene animal cruelty laws. I do not accept the suggestion that barbaric slaughtering methods such as shechita should be allowed in a country where anyone who is not a member of the minority in question would be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing. The principle of "law for one, law for all" should prevail and that means NO exceptions on the basis of minority status.
Barend Vlaardingerbroek

Anonymous said...

I agree with much of what you write. Except that the crusades were not a bad thing as you imply, and most people now wrongly assume.

The crusades were badly executed, but in principle were an attempt to recover the Christian Holy Land from occupation by Muslim's. Many people might now realise that it would have been a good think if the crusades had been successful.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Reuben. Your article describes what we are facing. It's been a long time coming, but at last someone has told it like it is. The Maori sovereignty groups dish out insults while they keep insisting on apologies for past indignities to themselves. But nowhere do we see apologies coming the other way for the settlers who worked hard to develop this nation, but who also suffered violence from them. This, along with their full and final settlements repeatededly coming back for more. All claims previously had a deadline of Sept. 2008, but they are still being lodged six years later. We need a government with the guts to say enough. Take what you have been given and prosper, use it well, because there is no more and we are not going to borrow to keep funding whatever you're doing with it. This government has put us deeper into debt to pay these people, so there should not a Maori child in the country who goes to school hungry without shoes in the winter, and there should not be a house where two or three Maori families live together under the one roof. Alternately, why are so many Maori youth without work? Why are the tribal leaders not providing jobs for 'their people'?
One final point - all the claims, the settlements amounting to billions of dollars now, are based on them being the indigenous people of New Zealand. This is not true. Maori are newcomers like the rest of us apart from Mori-Ori who were living here peacefully and welcomed the first Maori visitors, but suffered terribly for it. It is to be hoped the next government will not secretly send someone to the UN again, this time to sign a declaration for the Rights for Indigenous People. John Key sent Sharples to the UN to register Maori as the indigenous people of NZ, and the people did not know until it was done. Now another opportunity opens up for another four or five decades of unjust claims. Someone has noted if Maori activists do not get what they want there will be hikois up and down the country. So what? Let them hikoi and get over it. If they accept settlements they have to accept the law of the land, and obey like the rest of us or suffer the consequences.

Anonymous said...

Here here

Anonymous said...

Anon. States moriori lived mainland in a peaceful existance.....moriori are maori. Descended from brothers. During migration iwi moriori went straight to the chathams. His brother took other iwi to mainland new zealand. Moriori have a website kohitere trust. Anon might like to look at that. Just for clarity and correctness