The Daily Blog Open Mic – Wednesday – 4th September 2019

1. For those fascinated by the Brexit debacle. How do the smaller fish who probably like us, punch above their weight, feel?
   (‘The English, the English, the English are best, So up with the English and down with the rest.’ Flanders and Swann.)
   A tweet from Ireland as they try to be ready for whatever mayhem the English force on them.
   https://twitter.com/chrisrdonoghue?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

   The Welsh – https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/wales-dubbed-a-remain-nation-after-eu-vote/
   Wales’ remain-supporting parties outstripped their Brexit-backing counterparts in Sunday’s (26 May) election results, prompting the leader of the principality’s nationalist party to declare it a “Remain nation”. In 2016, Wales voted alongside England to leave the EU.
   Although Nigel Farage’s newborn Brexit Party won 32.5% of the vote in Wales, advocates for a second referendum on EU membership (Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK and Plaid Cymru) mustered 42.4%.

   The Scottish 2016 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum
   In the EU membership referendum held on 23 June 2016, all thirty-two council areas in Scotland voted by a majority for the UK to remain a member of the EU. 62% of Scottish voters voted to remain a member of the EU, with 38% voting to leave.

   The Isle of Wight is English, and The Isles of Scilly are Cornish, both in the UK.

   The Isle of Man is a separate jurisdiction and not in the EU though it comes under a British umbrella apparently, and people can move between EU and Man, reside but not work. Trade is allowed in EU without tariffs, but there are restrictions.

   Orkney Islands – They seem to be having a bob both ways. They have an MP in the UK Commons and another in the Scottish Parliament. They have discussed becoming independent of everybody, so very feisty.
   https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/nor.2016.0107https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/nor.2016.0107
   After the United Kingdom’s accession to the European Economic Community (the EEC) in 1973, representatives of the Orkney Islands entered into a network of new relationships. Access to the European institutions was through the official channels, Westminster/Whitehall and the Scottish Office. However, Orcadians also had access through side channels, by participation in European standing advisory bodies whose views were sought by the European Commission in policy-making. These bodies included the Committee of the Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR) which the Commission consulted on regional policy and the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) for agricultural, transport and social questions.1 After direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) could lobby Commissioners in the interests of their constituencies. Through these alternative channels, representatives of Orkney Islands Council and Orkney producer groups – Orkney National Farmers Union and the Orkney Fisheries Association – explored these new relationships and the possible advantages and drawbacks for Orkney of EEC membership. Through the alternative channels, Orkney’s representatives could make the European Commission aware of the needs of the Islands, needs that appeared to be ignored by central government.

   Channel Islands:
   https://www.britannica.com/place/Channel-Islands-English-Channel
   They comprise four main islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark, with lesser islets and a labyrinth of rocks and reefs.
   https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36458556
   The Channel Islands are not part of the EU and only a small percentage of residents are able to vote in the referendum on whether the UK should remain a member. … The most southerly part of the British Isles, the islands are self-governing Crown Dependencies, not members of the EU and not part of the UK.
   Their interesting political demarcations:
   https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Channel_Islands_Genealogy
   The Channel Islands (Norman: Îles d’la Manche) are a group of islands off the coast of Normandy, France. They comprise two separate countries: the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the States of Jersey. They are British, but do not belong to the United Kingdom.

   • It’s like all those movies, Y’know when everyone forgets what’s behind the concreted wall marked do not open for the last thousand years only some upstart brakes the seal that unleashes a mummy or zombie plague or what ever.

2. Does National deserve to win 2020 Election?
   No!!! as the new Government are being ‘stymied by National planted stool pigeons inside our agencies.

   Why? – firstly because National wanted to ruin every plan the Labour coalition had set up to benefit us all and look ‘winnable for the 2020 election’.

   National had a dark plan as they have quietly ‘collectively been sabotaging’ and undermining the Labour/Coalition Government for the last 20 months with ‘every underhanded scheming’ to have those planted bureaucrats to wreck every plan labour/coalition had used that had even looked viable, that may have helped labour look good.

   The obvious use of “bullying by Steven Joyce has been employed now, shows that Joyce has been the architect of this undermining of Government by acting against the citizens interests while also destroying the well being and health of the majority of the people.

   It was only a matter of time before the rot had to show as coming out of the old rotting carcass of the old National Party as we all knew instinctively that putting Simon Bridges up as the “temporary leader was just a ploy when the big leader was lurking behind the curtains, that is Steven Joyce all over again.

3. RIP Peter Ellis – victim of inflated moral outrage.
   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/398114/peter-ellis-man-at-centre-of-chch-creche-sex-case-has-died

4. Snippet from a One News piece – https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/green-party-members-resign-over-trans-rights-critical-newsletter-article

   “Co-leader Marama Davidson said on Twitter the post put trans people’s right to exist up for debate, and should not have been posted in the first place.”

   As we all know The Green Party is a proponent of equality. The exact concepts of equality with in democracy is not entirely clear and neither is it clear in the way equality has become incorporated into society. But equality of outcome is fairly straight forward – Gender binary will be destroyed and the 2 sexes, male and female will be redistributed equitably bring an end to violence and conflict (and I’ll be swapping in and out of equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity).

   The ideology of non-violence and the exclusion of feminist is the most direct connection The Green Party has to the concept of equality of outcome, but there are other actions taken by normal people that promote an equality of opportunity. For example it doesn’t matter what level of IQ that people start there education at, no one should earn less than the minimum wage and everyone deserves a living wage as a human right. What ever was meant by equality, The Green Party believes that the politics of non-violence will achieve it by bathing the country in gender non-binary that they hope will prevent the outbreak of conflict and to hold the left and right of the political spectrum in harmony in an ordered and peaceful state of equality.

   It is the actions of The Green Parties policy of non-violence where we get to see how 3rd wave feminists have evolved regarding The Green Party’s concept of equality, ultimately culminating in the conclusions of Martyn Bomber Bradbury. Bomber knows that The Green Party holds on to the myth of being woke, that they’ve created a kind of echo-chamber that extends across Twitter in an attempt to prevent any infiltration of gender binaries, and more important Bomber knows that this is done to promote The Green Parties concept of equality of outcomes.

   Bomber isn’t the only normal person who knows this and gives consideration to The Green Party’s attempt to create equality between Left and Rightwing ideology. But it should be pointed out that Bombers explanations of why normal people reject The Green Party’s concepts of equality as delusional. We should then immediately point out that normal people reject equality of outcomes because then it would give credence to the wealthy when the wealthy 1% are all about the domination and subjugation of the workforce. This way of thinking is put into perspective in the era of Hitler and is much more elaborate than the simple notion of non-violence.

   Going back to our example of The Green Party’s immersing Aotearoa-New Zealand in the ideology of equality of outcome, the normal people are rather perplexed at how this echo-chamber can even create equality. Regardless though, any idea of equality of outcome is rejected as a delusion of the radical left that speaks to the nature of society itself. Normal people recognise that society is self regulating because individuals have a will of there own, known of course as the social-contract. Regardless of Green Party policy, ideology or gender non-binary that prevents the infiltration of conflict, it is society that is in charge and will direct the will of New Zealand as it wants to.

   The will of the people have better representation among normal people than amongst the woke – but that is a debate for another day. Normal people’s self regulating nature of society makes any notions of equality of outcome delusional. Merely eluding to some idea of equality is a fools game because society self regulates and is separate from political ideology. So the concepts of holding the left and right in a state of perpetual bliss with the ideology of non-violence is perplexing to normal people and will be fiercely rejected.

   This rejection of equality of outcome results in a more important goal for normal people lead by the conclusions of Martyn Bomber Bradbury, that democracy will naturally protect marginalized and vulnerable people. So normal people want to use this natural phenomenon to ultimately protect those who are vulnerable and to achieve their goal of surviving Climate Change and take control of society itself. If society is truly self-regulating and on a path of its own then normal people will have to take control of the self regulating mechanism and find a way of dominating Democracy and Capitalism.

   There for in the era of MMP the goal of normal people is a far greater one and is directly resulted from the rejection of the Green Party’s stated goal of equality. Normal people have come to dominate the Human-Rights-Debate and become the tool with which to survive Climate Change and thrive.

   So it’s for these reasons why religion is kept separate from democracy and reject the idea that normal people can be controlled by fear, power and control. This type of concept is difficult for normal people to understand, or base any type of theory or pathway forward. Normal people wouldn’t know where to begin with equality of outcome but they do understand how to gain power through democracy. Where the separation of politics and religion now manifests itself in the woke as the ideology of non-violence to momentarily achieve equality, where as normal people would choose to achieve this for themselves. Normal people are not passive like the woke say they should be but normal people have come to dominate society.

   Make no mistake, normal people have no time for other people’s human rights and instead choose to vote ideologies out of politics and create the future they want. So that’s something normal people don’t understand about the woke is why they don’t attempt to create the future they want. So that’s why I think normal people reject The Green Party’s idea of equality.

5. Well said Sam,
   100% you emulated the current problems with the “modern Green Party”.

   Green Party is now far removed from being the ‘environmental warriors’ of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimmons Green Party of 2001 sadly.

   • Personally I want the Green Party to take on social equality as well as being environmental warriors. But that does not mean that we all have to cut off our hair because people who have cancer treatment lose their hair when they have radiation. What I mean is that because one lot of people are not included as the norm, it doesn’t mean that all the other people should automatically lose some of their culture to accommodate them.

     Allowances for difference should be encompassed, but demands for freedom of movement or opportunity to areas previously exclusively another group’s is unwelcome, and needs to be mediated and sometimes refused. You can’t have everything you want in life, but you can make a good effort to put your case on a fairness basis, recognising that you may be refused. For instance women have traditionally been excluded from many groups on account of gender, and this happens much less now. But sometimes men and women like to socialise or play sport or whatever with their own gender. It’s better to have options.
     I’m thinking here partly on what Sam has said.

Comments are closed.