ACT want to cancel HRC for cancelling They are us – it’s a double cancel cancel!
Seymour is being dangerous in his call to cancel the HRC. What he’s doing is being as ruthless and unforgiving as the activist woke and it is winning ACT voters.
The irony of ACT cancelling the HRC for their bewildering support of pre-censoring They Are Us is a merry-go-round or sarcasm.
TDB has been predicting for sometime that ACTs rise is no fluke or protest vote, but instead a seismic shift on the Right which seals National into a political death spiral.
Part of National’s historic loss was the changing demographics, Nationals zeal for self-mutilation and a large chunk of unprecedented solidarity that brought vast female 45+ Vote home to Labour, but a slither of it was ACT becoming a right wing values party.
Freedom of speech, gun rights, cancel culture – these became rallying calls for disaffected right wing vote who were sick of National’s social conservatism and yearned for a modern values based right wing politics.
ACT have stepped into that culture war gap and as debate polarizes, they will cannibalize Nationals vote.
Take the recent attempt by Judith to race bait He Puapua by using segregation and separatism. The truth is NZs next generation is less frightened about co-governance than the older generation and those dog whistles don’t work.
ACTs clever criticism of teaching white privilege in school however is perfect culture war baiting. NZers on the whole will wearily wave co-governance through because decades of poor social stats have worn smooth any pretense that universal social services have worked for Māori. The majority attitude is ‘well you do it then’ rather than a gleeful skipping hand in hand towards a Treaty of Waitangi future designed in woke Twitter world.
So a Maori Health Authority isn’t seen as segregation by anyone other than older men who refer to the Prime Minister as ‘Cindy’.
Making white children feel guilty about being white however is political dynamite in culture war button pushing.
ACT are better at culture war value positions than National whose openly racist dog whistles are ham fisted and banjo twanging.
While Seymour is Leader, this reactionary right will stay within the spectrum of decency however if one of those vile social climbers beneath him took over as ACT eclipsed National, we are in for trouble.
The magnitude of how far right ACT are isn’t acknowledged while they’ve been fringe but this will come to a head in 2026 when ACT vs Labour-Green are the parameters for a vastly more polarized political debate.
ACTs sudden rise because of National’s implosion means much of their crazy far undergrad right wing policy is not being examined at all…
- Cut and freeze the Minimum wage
- Interest back on all student loans
- No Kiwsaver subsidy
- Cancel winter energy payment
- Dump all climate crisis legislation
- no more best start payments for families with new borns
- cut welfare payments
- no tax credits for research and development
- cuts to working for families
- $7b a year cut in public services
- Abolish Maori seats
- Abolish Human Rights Commission
…Once left wing and centrist voters realise just how far right ACT really are, the fear of keeping them from Government will outweigh whatever sin Jacinda has committed.
ACT’s sudden and uncritical rise will hurt National and win Labour the 2023 election.
It’s easy to cry wolf when the wolf is a brain hungry zombie dog hunting for human flesh in a premature infants ward.
The only way ACT’s far right policies don’t end up scaring the middle is if the Woke don’t end up scaring them more!
But that won’t happen eh?
The Woke won’t cave into their worst vengeance fantasies and start a hate speech purge right?
Right?
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
“Human Rights” – where do these right come from? What are these rights? Nobody has a definition.
As for the UN, they seem to use the term as a Babel building tool.
Erm,…what one must realize, is that destroying ones main opponent and then singling out the remaining smaller group, identifying and corralling them is a far easier thing to do. Inasmuch as full focus can then be applied to this much smaller group as a static target. Just what has ACT really got? Free speech?… so has the Left.
A raft of anti personnel policy’s?
How attractive is that?
Think striking nurses,… you really think ACT will handle them any better?,… the nurses would make mincemeat of them backed by the NZ populace. They wouldn’t stand a show.
As they wouldn’t stand a show in a myriad of their decrepit, antiquated social and economic far right wing greed policy’s. And they know that. It is all bluster, virtue signaling and smoke and mirrors.
No ones interested in their gun rights bandwagon, – we are all interested in the economy!
Far right wing Values party !!!
My arse!
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA !!!
Sadly Paul Hunt, the academics academic who looks an awful lot like Albert Steptoe, really stuffed up royally by giving money on behalf of us to a criminal organization who just cannot help but make the headlines most weeks for the most appalling things one human can do to another as a standard. He reckons he is not that naive but the fuck he wasn’t.
He should have stuck to chilling out in the rarefied theoretical air of the university wardrobe where such eminent intellectuals hang upside during the day. No one had heard of him before and most barely tolerate the HRC, now its very existence is called into question and few would care if it ceased to exist.
Twits like Hunt, and there a few “commissioners” out there at the moment who fit that bill, give ACT an updraft and tailwind for free. As does Jacinda’s ill thought out hate speech laws, that she barely can verbalise!
Well as to recognising human rights and what they are
The United Nations built on The Atlantic Charter of 1941 to recognise four freedoms and human rights are based on that ( if people think I am wrong they are welcome to point it out).
Freedom from want: this includes things like fair wages and benefits, housing, medical care.
Freedom of speech: the right to petition the government and criticise it without fear of punishment. The right to voice and publish opinions even if they are unpopular.
Freedom from fear: A person cannot be seized and lynched because of what they said or did. There are laws.
Freedom of belief: people can vote for whoever they want, form political parties, belong to religions, form new religions.
I think that about covers it
ACT wish to get rid of the HRC not because they’re “right wing” but because they’re libertarian and believe in small, efficient government.
If I was leading ACT I’d want to throw a lot of other useless ministries and commissioners on the tip. I see these civil servants as having future careers driving trucks or nailing roof trusses.
Here is the draft of the horrible proposed movie script:
They are us draft script worse than livestream
I don’t believe that by retelling the story that the writers and producers are committing acts of terror or inspired terrorism. We have a definition for that now in the maggot of the earths own words.
New Zealand was the victim of international terrorism by a friendly country, twice. We we’re let down do the whole international community.
Two meanings of terrorism is arising. One is the litteral definition in law to use violence to intimidate for political gain but no one uses that definition because it follows that Australia and France is a terrorist state!
So the litterally definition on Brenton Tarrants own words is unusable by the victims because it conflicts with there own objectives.
Now we go with the woke definition which is the same as the doctoral definition of terrorism with a slight modification that only applies to what kiwis do to Muslims and not what Muslims do to us.
That’s the litteral meaning and the doctoral meaning and I will now use it as an example.
What to do about terrorism kiwi style so that’s them against us is Don act in order to increase the threat. NZDFs role in wars since the fall of the Berlin is to act to increase the threat of terrorism, not because they want more terror but because terrorists in the true sense of the law that are acted against like the attempt to rebuild Afghanistan actually increases the threat if terrorism.
Another thing to do about terrorism which is a part from the legal definition is what to do about the grievances of terrorism. It may have been that the threat of the mosques attack came from grievances coming from falling western birth rates.
But what ever the grievances are beyond that terrorism is a police problem.