Guest Post: What Drives the Leaders of Minority Groups

JD writes on BFD as a Guest Post:

We are continually told that various groups in New Zealand suffer from systemic discrimination and that whatever is wrong in their lives is the fault of others, not of themselves.

Politicians and political parties of a certain stripe are regularly in the news promoting these ideas and demanding that these inequalities be addressed.

We ask ourselves why this latter group exists and what is their motivation for this pursuit of grievances and ‘advocacy for the downtrodden’.

Firstly we should recognise that they are motivated by those most human of emotions, self-interest and greed.

One of the first rules of advertising is to identify a problem even if people are not aware it exists, and then claim your product can fix it. This is exactly how the advocacy industry works.

The leadership elites of minority groups claim they want those they lead to be saved from the problem of discrimination inflicted by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.

Such tyranny is described and exaggerated by using various triggering terms such as colonialism, racism, homophobia, trans-phobia, or anything else that can be blamed for supposedly disadvantaging each minority group in turn.

Encouraged in their belief that they are second-rate citizens, each group and its leaders blame any of their shortcomings and failures not on themselves, but on their position as ‘victims of the majority’.

Having identified the supposed problem, the elites then go on to claim it is only they who have the ‘ability of advocacy’ that will address it. For this, the minority group they lead should be suitably grateful and obliged to ensure that their leaders are well rewarded for their efforts.

Concurrent with this, as the eminent black US economist Thomas Sowell points out, “elites frequently frame issues and events as crises which only they can solve – regardless of the costs they might impose upon society”.

All of which is a classic description of self-interest and the most obvious motivator of these, the often self-appointed, ‘advocates of the downtrodden’.

In reality of course, if any minority group were to rise above the excuse of discrimination and accept that we are all simply New Zealanders with equal rights and opportunities, responsible primarily for ourselves, then the leadership elite of that group would be out of a job.

Forced to sink back into obscurity they would lose the rewards of office to which they claim to be entitled.

As an obvious consequence, the minority elites have no real interest in improving the lot of those they lead. Instead, whenever things do improve, they must continually find new grievances to stoke the fires of victimhood and thus perpetuate their own employment.

This then is the initial reason why we are constantly harangued, often with a new claim of discrimination and oppression each week, by the self-appointed “social warriors” of the left, the likes of Waititi, Ngarewa-Packer, Jackson, Davidson, Swarbrick et al.

However, given the virulence of the attacks by these people against the majority, we might also look for some other underlying reason for their anger, and I contend it is quite simply this: it stems from a sense of personal self-loathing.

These people, though they may not admit it, first and foremost hate themselves.

They have grown up believing they are, for whatever reason, less than others. Less than their peers and less than the norm because they were non-white or non-binary, less wealthy, or non-whatever-else they choose to fixate on as an excuse for their perceived failings.

During one’s formative years, feeling somehow lacking when compared to ‘the majority’ leads initially to feelings of self-hatred for one’s ‘differentness’.

However, as time goes by people move away from the acceptance of any personal blame for these feelings. Instead, the blame is eventually externalised and projected back onto ‘the majority’ who are held to be responsible.

Fired by their self-hatred they eventually become zealots who believe their cause to be justified, even divinely inspired, to the point where they must vigorously and violently attack all those who do not subscribe to their way of thinking.

Thus all manifestations of the majority, as the cause of their dissatisfaction, are pejoratively labelled as colonists, white-supremacists, racists, homophobes etc, and must be demonised at every opportunity.

When we recognise this self-loathing and the anger it drives, we can begin to understand the reason for the rhetoric of violence which eventuates from the left.

Aggressive hakas, insults and patu waving in parliament by Te Pati Maori, Labour’s Peeni Henari threatening to “pick up my gun and let the shots do the talking”, Willie Jackson claiming that “Maori will ‘go to war’ if the Treaty referendum goes ahead”, Chloe Swarbrick supporting the terrorists of Hamas and their calls for the extermination of Jews and the Jewish state, Marama Davidson condoning attacks by the rainbow community on free speech advocates whilst claiming that “it is white cis men who cause violence in the world”. The list goes on.

In summary, there are two key factors that drive today’s spokespersons of the left in New Zealand.

Firstly their desire to perpetuate the ‘rewards of advocacy’, feeding their egos and their bank accounts.

Secondly, the outward projection of their self-hatred which drives them to virulently attack those they believe are responsible for their own inadequacies.

Finally, reflecting on all of this, I find I have also described the basic tenet of Marxism in a nutshell.

Injustice and oppression, real or imagined, must be promoted so that revolution and a great levelling can occur.

Then those who know best can rise above the masses and direct the new society.

Just ask Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. They knew how it works.