First I must give a quick note on identity and politics. Identity politics is often criticised from the liberal right as being dangerous. In a mostly homogenous society this is correct, as identity politics damages social cohesion. When over 90% of the population is homogenous, identity politics poses a risk to ethnic minorities being scapegoated. It is also unnecessary to the political functioning of the homogenous nation. Disagreements are matters of policy, since both sides of the political aisle share a common ethnic, cultural, and religious identity. However, in a multicultural democracy this no longer holds true, and the question of identity must inevitably take the foreground. Politics is no longer a question of competing policy, but a question of competing identities.
Allow me to expound on Trump's light-hearted attacks on Harris to set the stage for the more serious problems here in New Zealand. It's really the same story as ACT MPs being harassed about their race, but from right-to-left instead of left-to-right and both sides are playing dumb about it. Harris is half Indian, half Jamaican, and raised in Canada. This places her in an identity crisis where she switches identities ("code switching") based on her audience. This is why she also does fake accents at rallies in the South. She's used to not being authentic, because there is no authentic Kamala Harris. She has no dominant identity that she will claim over all others, and each is simply a political tool dependent on the moment. Such is the nature of the left's "intersectional" coalition of minority identities that exists only in contrast to the majority identity. Trump's questions about her identity strike deep at her appeal of being a "black woman". To cast doubts on the authenticity of her identity is to harm her chances of winning by far more than any policy argument ever could.
The US election is not about policy, but about identity. Trump's path to victory is to get an extra few disaffected rural white voters in swing states. Kamala's path to victory relies on a higher black turnout in swing states. Everyone freely admits this now, no matter if the commentary is coming from the left, right, or centre.
The attacks that the left in New Zealand is launching on the coalition government's MPs follow the same line of attack. Karen Chhour's identity in particular is a focus, because she is dismantling racial-preference policy "as a Maori" while the ACT party is officially a race-denialist party. They say ethnic identity is not relevant to politics, but attempt to use it to shield their political agenda from left-wing criticism. This is obviously not working. David Seymour has formally expressed doubts in the speaker's ability to deal with racialised criticism being thrown at his MPs. The left understand that politics is about identity.
At this point we must point out that the Maori race has effectively split in two, the "Anglo-Maori" and the "Maori" ought to be thought of as two different people, the Anglo-Maori wish to live under the same flag as their Anglo-Saxon brothers. The ethno-nationalist Maori minority wish to chart their own path. While they are a minority of all those of Maori descent, they have the numbers and power to demand a piece of the action. At some stage in the future a compromise will have to be reached. It would be more useful for New Zealand to recognise this split between those who have Maori ancestry as two different ethnic groups. The old pureblooded Maori race is no more, but it has a successor race in those who follow the Maori Party today and developing their ethnic cohesion is something they value highly. This is why Rawiri Waititi argues about "blood quantum" with the Anglo-Maori government MPs who do not care about such things, as is their right too. Both sides like to yell "racist", but they are only talking past each other because the postwar liberal consensus does not allow the language required to have this discussion honestly.
This is why Karen Chhour's breakdown in tears is described in effeminate nonsense terms like "unsafe workplace" rather than as the clash of ethnic identities it really is. She is seen as an agent of the dominant Anglo (-Saxon and -Maori) majority by her enemies. Why should she be ashamed of that or view it as an attack? Because the ACT party doesn't believe in ethnic identity (outside of it being a gimmick) and thinks that liberal ideals are enough to ground an individual. I should suggest this saga is clear evidence of the shortcoming of that approach.
This is only going to get worse, so crying about it won't help. Why will it get worse? Let's deal with the third incident.
As the Greens are finding out with the resignation of their Pacific leaders group: in a multi-racial democracy all politics is race politics. The Polynesian group argues that equal treatment and due process is really white supremacy as it benefits the dominant ethnic group.
This problem will get worse as the NZ left tries to find a path back to power. Deeply rooted and developed ethnic consciousness from Polynesian factions will always clash with the rootless European liberal leftists, and drive the Asian ethnic groups to the 'centre-right'. On top of that, some form of Anglo-Saxon ethnic consciousness is inevitable if the left remains wedded to their view of indigenous rights. White boomers are basically doing accidental racial solidarity by voting for "equal rights" at the moment, if you take the Green's letter at face value. Chinese immigrants already vote 90% National + ACT, largely due to their fear of increased racial favouritism in law which would impact them very negatively. I don't have numbers for Indians and Filipinos, but they are probably not far behind in this radicalisation. Polynesians likely vote close to 90% for left-wing parties due to in-group preferences.
It comes back to immigration. If we don't stop infinity immigration then NZ will be fully radicalised among racial lines within 20 years, with no clear ethnic majority. If you think this Parliamentary term is racially charged, just remember that it is going to get a whole lot worse as both sides of the political aisle are fully committed to ignoring the root problem. Chanting "we are one people" like it's a magic incantation isn't going to cut it.
Dieuwe is the editor of Right Minds NZ. - where this article was sourced. In addition to conservative politics and reactionary thought, he likes books, gardening, biking, tech, reformed theology, beauty, and tradition.
Allow me to expound on Trump's light-hearted attacks on Harris to set the stage for the more serious problems here in New Zealand. It's really the same story as ACT MPs being harassed about their race, but from right-to-left instead of left-to-right and both sides are playing dumb about it. Harris is half Indian, half Jamaican, and raised in Canada. This places her in an identity crisis where she switches identities ("code switching") based on her audience. This is why she also does fake accents at rallies in the South. She's used to not being authentic, because there is no authentic Kamala Harris. She has no dominant identity that she will claim over all others, and each is simply a political tool dependent on the moment. Such is the nature of the left's "intersectional" coalition of minority identities that exists only in contrast to the majority identity. Trump's questions about her identity strike deep at her appeal of being a "black woman". To cast doubts on the authenticity of her identity is to harm her chances of winning by far more than any policy argument ever could.
The US election is not about policy, but about identity. Trump's path to victory is to get an extra few disaffected rural white voters in swing states. Kamala's path to victory relies on a higher black turnout in swing states. Everyone freely admits this now, no matter if the commentary is coming from the left, right, or centre.
The attacks that the left in New Zealand is launching on the coalition government's MPs follow the same line of attack. Karen Chhour's identity in particular is a focus, because she is dismantling racial-preference policy "as a Maori" while the ACT party is officially a race-denialist party. They say ethnic identity is not relevant to politics, but attempt to use it to shield their political agenda from left-wing criticism. This is obviously not working. David Seymour has formally expressed doubts in the speaker's ability to deal with racialised criticism being thrown at his MPs. The left understand that politics is about identity.
At this point we must point out that the Maori race has effectively split in two, the "Anglo-Maori" and the "Maori" ought to be thought of as two different people, the Anglo-Maori wish to live under the same flag as their Anglo-Saxon brothers. The ethno-nationalist Maori minority wish to chart their own path. While they are a minority of all those of Maori descent, they have the numbers and power to demand a piece of the action. At some stage in the future a compromise will have to be reached. It would be more useful for New Zealand to recognise this split between those who have Maori ancestry as two different ethnic groups. The old pureblooded Maori race is no more, but it has a successor race in those who follow the Maori Party today and developing their ethnic cohesion is something they value highly. This is why Rawiri Waititi argues about "blood quantum" with the Anglo-Maori government MPs who do not care about such things, as is their right too. Both sides like to yell "racist", but they are only talking past each other because the postwar liberal consensus does not allow the language required to have this discussion honestly.
This is why Karen Chhour's breakdown in tears is described in effeminate nonsense terms like "unsafe workplace" rather than as the clash of ethnic identities it really is. She is seen as an agent of the dominant Anglo (-Saxon and -Maori) majority by her enemies. Why should she be ashamed of that or view it as an attack? Because the ACT party doesn't believe in ethnic identity (outside of it being a gimmick) and thinks that liberal ideals are enough to ground an individual. I should suggest this saga is clear evidence of the shortcoming of that approach.
This is only going to get worse, so crying about it won't help. Why will it get worse? Let's deal with the third incident.
As the Greens are finding out with the resignation of their Pacific leaders group: in a multi-racial democracy all politics is race politics. The Polynesian group argues that equal treatment and due process is really white supremacy as it benefits the dominant ethnic group.
This problem will get worse as the NZ left tries to find a path back to power. Deeply rooted and developed ethnic consciousness from Polynesian factions will always clash with the rootless European liberal leftists, and drive the Asian ethnic groups to the 'centre-right'. On top of that, some form of Anglo-Saxon ethnic consciousness is inevitable if the left remains wedded to their view of indigenous rights. White boomers are basically doing accidental racial solidarity by voting for "equal rights" at the moment, if you take the Green's letter at face value. Chinese immigrants already vote 90% National + ACT, largely due to their fear of increased racial favouritism in law which would impact them very negatively. I don't have numbers for Indians and Filipinos, but they are probably not far behind in this radicalisation. Polynesians likely vote close to 90% for left-wing parties due to in-group preferences.
It comes back to immigration. If we don't stop infinity immigration then NZ will be fully radicalised among racial lines within 20 years, with no clear ethnic majority. If you think this Parliamentary term is racially charged, just remember that it is going to get a whole lot worse as both sides of the political aisle are fully committed to ignoring the root problem. Chanting "we are one people" like it's a magic incantation isn't going to cut it.
Dieuwe is the editor of Right Minds NZ. - where this article was sourced. In addition to conservative politics and reactionary thought, he likes books, gardening, biking, tech, reformed theology, beauty, and tradition.
2 comments:
"At this point we must point out that the Maori race has effectively split in two, the "Anglo-Maori" and the "Maori" ought to be thought of as two different people, the Anglo-Maori wish to live under the same flag as their Anglo-Saxon brothers. The ethno-nationalist Maori minority wish to chart their own path."
I disagree with this. You can be proud of your ancestry and heritage without it being in conflict with other people's ancestry and heritage.
The kind of ethno-nationalist Maori rhetoric coming from Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, John Tamahere, Tuku Morgan and the rest of the Maori Party is exactly the kind of rhetoric heard in 1930's Germany. That too started small, in blue collar meetings, talking of being dispossessed, and losing out to "others".
If it were ever to get any significant traction, this country is doomed
"At some stage in the future a compromise will have to be
reached. "
It must be recognized that this group does not want a separate state or any sort of compromise arrangement. It wants an ethnocracy - i.e. tribal rule with superior status and ultimate power inside the existing state - all paid for by non-Maori taxpayers.
This is the final objective ( i.e. the He Puapua agenda ). Any so-called compromise would be a temporary smoke screen to hide the true goal. NZers who still cannot see this fact are delusional and will pay a high price for this attitude.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.