Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Solzhenitsyn' s bluecaps


Recruiting Solzhenitsyn to destroy “them”

by Mr. Sheehy

I am not the kind of teacher who spends the summer getting ready for the next year. Next year will come and I have other things to worry about over the summer. Plus, I have found without fail that if I make a plan three months in advance, or even two weeks in advance, I will end up trashing that plan in favor of one I’ve cooked up the day before. Long term planning of specifics is therefore not something I do.
If I speak of a more general concept of planning, however, I would then admit to spending my entire life planning for the next year or the next day or the next anything. Everything is fodder for everything else–whether a pleasurable story or a provoking point.
This summer, therefore, I have been generally and unintentionally collecting material to consider when I teach my unit on Elie Wiesel’s Night. Teaching the Holocaust is a difficult unit for me, fraught with delicate balances. One of the more interesting see-saws I set up is to place on one seat the unique horror of the Holocaust and on the other seat the present reality and possibility of it. For the horror seat, I dwell on Wiesel’s account and other historical collections to stretch students’ imaginations, encouraging them to grasp how horrible it was. But with the reality seat, I turn around and ask them to consider places like Rwanda and Sudan, that they might not be so arrogant as to categorize the Holocaust as an event done “then” by “them.”
The film “Hotel Rwanda” helped me greatly to overcome the “then” concept, and many students in their end-of-the-year letters to me remarked that the movie was the most memorable experience of their year. But as powerful as the movie was, it left the cherished “them” in place.
Next year I will likely invoke Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in my attempt to knock down the “them.” I am reading Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago for my own gratification, but as usual, I will not be able to restrain myself from sharing my own discoveries with my students–isn’t that part of what impassioned teaching is, though? Sharing the passion for knowledge and wisdom? Sharing my small portion of the depths of the world’s discoveries, in hopes that students will share theirs in return?
In a chapter called “The Bluecaps” Solzhenitsyn blows away any pride he might rightfully have carried for being a victim instead of an evildoer during Stalin’s reign in the USSR:
As the folk saying goes: If you speak for the wolf, speak against him as well.
Where did this wolf-tribe apear from among our people? Does it really stem from our own roots? Our own blood?
It is our own.
And just so we don’t go around flaunting too proudly the white mantle of the just, let everyone ask himself: “If my life had turned out differently, might I myself not have become just such and executioner?”
It is a dreadful question if one answers it honestly. (p. 160)
Solzhenitsyn later elaborates by explaining how he himself grew into a prideful and potentially dangerous creature,

Sunday, April 27, 2014

exclusivist politicised circles within academia dominants with collusionist politics and media

The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders

The poor quality of analysis behind Australia’s abandonment of traditional assimilationist immigration policy reached its apotheosis recently in a spate of articles by well placed commentators. The proposal of the moment was open borders, immigration unrestricted by consideration of all factors save for security. Most Australians will reject the proposal as absurd. Unfortunately the analytical basis for policies followed by federal governments since the 1970s has not much differed apart from economic criteria.
Prof. Mirko Bagaric (SMH, 7 April 2010, p. 15[i]), professor of law at Deakin University, argues for unrestricted immigration from the poorest to the richest countries as the best means to reduce Third World poverty. Initially his article came as a pleasant surprise to one who applies biological concepts and methods to the study of human society. Prof. Bagaric opened by stating two truths about human ethnocentrism: “[M]ost still prefer people of their own type and find different cultures jarring”; and “It is in the human DNA.” [ii]
However from that point the article provided almost no hint that humans are an evolved species with an interest in survival. Prof. Bagaric superficially discusses three interests that could be affected by open borders – material prosperity, national security, and cultural tradition – more of which later. This leaves many interests unmentioned.
Unrestricted migration would harm Australia’s national interests in ways documented by scholars in economics, sociology and related disciplines. Much of the harm is predictable from what is known about the dysfunctions of diversity. They include growing inequality in the especially invidious form of ethnic stratification. No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.
Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.[iii]
The loss of social cohesion bears emphasis. Disapproving of birds flocking together is beside the point; it is a biological fact that needs to be taken into account.[iv] Rising diversity within human societies tends to drive people apart, causing them to take sanctuary in individual pursuits and ethnic communities. The practical consequences are reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care[v]and a general loss of trust.[vi] Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war.[vii] Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.[viii]
Thus the thrust of accumulating research in several disciplines indicates that unrestricted mass immigration would be disastrous for wealthy countries. Some of this research has been well publicised; some has been published in Australia.
There are also philosophical issues that deserve comment.
I found the single-minded concern with Third World poverty puzzling, especially coming from a declared moral universalist. It is true that poverty would be reduced for those immigrating to the wealthy West, but do not the populations of industrial countries also have interests – in ecological sustainability and national continuity – that would be injured by the influx of millions of foreigners? Should not global problems be solved in ways that optimize interests instead of benefiting one population at the expense of another? Should we not be aiming at win-win outcomes?  
From the global perspective, humanity as a whole stands to lose from overpopulation. As the late Garrett Hardin pointed out, allowing poor countries, which generally have high birth rates, the expedient of offloading excess population on low-birth rate regions reduces the incentive to solve their own population problem, for example by tackling the poverty and under-education of women. Global overpopulation can only be solved one country at a time, not by rewarding profligacy.
Another philosophical issue is Prof. Bagaric’s equating parochialism with morally repugnant “racism”. Surely that is not true, firstly because “racism” has no agreed definition and has been deployed for ideological and ad hominem purposes. It is more an instrument of abuse than of reason. If its use cannot be avoided it should be reserved to describe ethnically aggressive statements and acts, not the peaceful expression of pro-social sentiments common to humans everywhere.
Secondly, the notion that preference for one’s own people is immoral ignores the universal interest we all share in particular affiliations. All humans share parochial interests that give rise to social preferences. It would be maladaptive not to prefer people of our own type, beginning with kin. And in general this preference is moral. Bearing and caring for our own children, choosing friends on intuition, and having a special affection for our own country cannot be equated with hating others.[ix] A liberal society that allows free expression of these moderate preferences is hardly the moral inferior of one in which the elite scolds and punishes the people’s aspirations to have a country of their own.
The universality of parochial interests contradicts Prof. Bagaric when he states: “For most of human history there have been few migration limits. . . . A relevant reason [for restricting immigration] cannot be a person’s birthplace. This is merely a happy or unhappy coincidence.” The anthropological reality is the precise opposite: until recent decades almost all human society have sought to prevent permanent mass migration. Hunter gatherers and primitive agriculturalists, farmers and herders have all laid claim to a territory and fiercely defended it. Marriage partners have been found almost exclusively within the ethnic group, encompassing the local dialect. The psychological motivations for this are well established in such predispositions as social identity mechanisms, collectivism, assortment by similarity, innate cognition of human kinds, and rational choice.[x] Evolutionary origins of territoriality and ethnocentrism are indicated by their being human universals as well as being found in apes. And from the evolutionary perspective, which acknowledges the limited carrying capacity of all territories and of the world itself, it is maladaptive to allow one’s lineage – family, clan, or ethnic group to be replaced by others.[xi]
The vital interest all societies have in controlling a territory also falsifies the assertion that national security consists solely of defending individual citizens from attack by vetting immigrants for terrorist connections as is already the practice with tourists. Unlike tourists, immigrants affect the receiving country’s identity and cohesion. Societies have a corporate interest in retaining national sovereignty, which entails control of a territory, which in turn implies the will to defend against displacement in that territory. Inviting the world to a country as prosperous as Australia would result in the displacement of the Australian people inside their historical homeland.
The final philosophical point I shall discuss is the claim that open borders are somehow consistent with liberal thinking, that everyone in the world has the same rights. The problem with arguing from rights is that they can conflict, as implicitly admitted in the disclaimer that no one should infringe on others rights. Arguments based on interests have the same problem, but also the advantage of undercutting a mountain of abstractions. More to the point, the father of modern liberalism, John Stuart Mill, though generally a universalist who set his disciples on a course away from the natural sciences, was sufficiently acquainted with the real world to support liberal nationalism:
Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart . . . One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.[xii]
Mill also wrote:
Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.[xiii]
Mill is not the final word on these subjects but he does show that basing an argument on rights does not logically entail open borders.
The calibre of open-borders arguments raises questions. How could the research documented above be ignored – not even hinted at – by a professional academic in the age of google? Individual scholars are technically responsible for covering the literature bearing on their research. But in this case there is the mitigating circumstance of the general state of the social sciences in Australia and overseas. Three weeks after Prof. Bagaric’s article appeared I have not come across one academic rebuttal. The SMH has not published a reply by another professor pointing out the obvious empirical fallacies, the failures of scholarship, the sloppy and inflammatory language. Neither has there been a storm of denunciation by colleagues or the media; no multiply-signed letters sent to newspapers defending the credibility of Deakin University or the humanities and social sciences. Nothing on radio or television. The online comments were overwhelmingly critical and were generally cogent but none of these authors identified as an academic. It seems that ordinary citizens have retained their common sense, while intellectuals are ominously silent.
Mike Steketee, a senior journalist at The Australian newspaper (10 April 2010[xiv]), appears to disagree with Bagaric. He also takes issue with Chris Berg,[xv] a research fellow at the Institute for Public Affairs, who advances a similar case for unrestricted immigration. Steketee writes that advocating open borders is “well intentioned” but would cause “chaos”, without describing the latter state. Well intentioned? He agrees with Bagaric and Berg that opening the floodgates would be ethical and that it would reduce Third World poverty. It would be the liberal thing to do in light of universal human rights: “[W]e believe individuals have the same rights, wherever they live”. But alas democracy would get in the way. Voters would reject the dissolution of the nation state and the installation of a world government. They continue to support (immoral) tough treatment of boat people. Mr. Steketee thinks that despite the proven benefits of immigration the Australian people wish to retain “control of their destiny”, implying that a rational electorate would let go and accept a much larger immigrant intake.
It seems that Mr. Steketee cannot fault Mr. Bagaric or Mr. Berg on social or ethical grounds. Indeed, he agrees with them that the free movement of people across borders is ideal. His disagreement, such as it is, concerns public relations and the pace of transformation that is politically feasible.
Berg’s article strikes a radical libertarian stance that also fails to discuss collective interests. Instead he focuses on moral claims, namely that all humans have equal moral worth regardless of where they live (p. 1). He also emphasises the benefits of immigration to immigrants. The following provides the gist of the remainder of his argument: 
But immigration is good for the developed world, too. It’s good for the economy—immigrants end up being entrepreneurs and shopkeepers; employees and employers; and consumers and producers. More people mean more creativity, more opportunity, and more culture. Migrants bring skills, knowledge and international connections (p. 3). 
As Mr. Berg does not distinguish immigrants by education or origins, every sentence of the above quote is either outright false according to available research or contentious. Immigrants from impoverished countries do not provide overall benefits to advanced economies, though they help some employers by reducing wages.[xvi] Inequality rises. In the United States Third World immigration increases the size of the overall economy but reduces per capita incomes. It is the latter that affects living standards. Immigrants from different cultures differ dramatically in their educational performance and entrepreneurship for several generations.
Prof. Bagaric writes off the nation as essentially racist. Mr. Berg thinks that “[t]here’s really nothing that special about national borders or the nation itself.” This is a strong claim but it becomes clear that Mr. Berg thinks that a nation is a state, failing to make an elementary and important distinction.[xvii] A nation is at its core an ethnic group living in its homeland, with shared elements of culture and means of communication. A nation can exist without its own state, an example being the Kurds. And most states are not limited to one nation’s territory. All nation states are built around a founding ethnic core.[xviii] However even without this distinction Mr. Berg is wise to state that: “A nation is the most convenient mechanism by which the institutions of liberty can be delivered.” (p. 4) True enough, but is that not a good reason for libertarians and all who treasure civil rights to defend national integrity? 
The intellectual void surrounding the concept of the nation becomes most apparent when Mr. Berg wonders why an otherwise consistent libertarian, Murray Rothbard, thought that culture is worth defending by restricting immigration (p. 6). He quotes Rothbard’s reason thus: “[A]s the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples.” Not a bad reason. It could be supported by other examples of regimes that have used the demographic weapon, such as China in Tibet or Indonesia in West Irian. The extraordinary thing is that Mr. Berg offers no comment after quoting Rothbard. It is as if the concepts being used, “ethnic” and “destroy the culture and languages” failed to register. But they are real. Australian policy makers should bear in mind that ethnic nationalism is still a powerful force that tears countries and empires apart and creates new nations. Recent examples are the dismemberment of the Soviet and Yugoslavian empires in the 1990s. When people are allowed to choose they vote for policies that make or keep them as the ethnic majority. The result is that spreading democracy creates relatively homogeneous small states with heightened social capital and its flip side of social stability, efficient government, low corruption, more democracy, and higher economic growth.[xix] Why would a libertarian want open borders? Why would anyone want to become a minority in his own country? 
By the way, one can add to Rothbard’s excellent reason for defending the cultural integrity of nations. All the benefits of relative homogeneity (and thus of assimilation and prudent immigration) documented above belong to nations, not to multi-ethnic states. One can also extend Rothbard’s reasoning. The Soviets attempted to Russify Estonia and Latvia as a means of controlling those territories. They assumed that the ethnic-Russian minorities would maintain their identity distinct from that of the target nations. As these national communities shrank in relative size they were meant to become just another competing ethnic group, national unity would be replaced by a multi-ethnic state, and the capacity of the original Estonian and Latvian nations to strategise on their own behalves would be diminished. This is what Rothbard was getting at. And who would put it past the Soviets to have reckoned that if demographic transformation could be continued long enough, the original nation would die. Another might arise in its place but that would take a long time and would not replace what was lost to the original nation. 
These two pieces, one by a senior press commentator, the other by a researcher with a respected think tank, confirm the impression that the egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole.
How have so many scholars come to ignore accessible knowledge about human nature and interests?  Australia’s 39 universities employ thousands of lecturers and professors in relevant disciplines. Any one of them should be able to expose elements of the case for open borders. A first year student of social anthropology should know that borders have always been closed to replacement-level migration. Students of government and sociology should know in outline the cases for and against diversity. How can bold assertions such as those in the three articles examined here go unremarked? What is being taught at our universities?
A century ago the social sciences began suing for divorce from the biological sciences.[xx]Reconciliation began in the 1970s but sociology, political science, large sections of anthropology and much of the humanities remain aloof. Add to that the political straight jacketing of these fields, an important reason for their doctrinaire rejection of biology, and it is not surprising that we see utopian socialism of the most naive variety emanating unchallenged from the professoriate. The world of ideas is one arena in which diversity is an unalloyed benefit, where homogeneity demonstrably degrades standards.
The evidence refuting the case for open borders also applies to the scale and diversity of existing immigration policy. Any policy is suspect that threatens a country’s ecological sustainability, increases diversity or tends to subordinate the core ethnic group. Such a trend was already in place for several years before historian Geoffrey Blainey warned that immigration from non-traditional Asian source countries was outrunning its welcome in the mid 1980s.[xxi]
Ethnic stratification is taking place. Aboriginal Australians remain an economic underclass and some immigrant communities show high levels of unemployment. Anglo Australians, still almost 70 percent of the population, are presently being displaced disproportionately in the professions and in senior managerial positions by Asian immigrants and their children.[xxii] The situation is dramatic at selective schools which are the high road to university and the professions. Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.[xxiii]
The democratic process has been prevented from correcting our maladaptive immigration policies due to bipartisanship – a long-term deal between the major political parties to keep immigration issues off the table at election time. The collusion began responsibly enough as a measure to facilitate assimilation during the massive post-WWII immigration program from Europe. By the 1970s bipartisanship served to shield both parties from majority objections while they profited from multicultural politics, garnering votes from immigrant communities in exchange for immigration favours. Arguably this collusion would have been difficult to sustain if a substantial number of academics and commentators had spoken truth to power.
Instead, the rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission. Political leaders and citizens alike look to intellectuals for the facts and analysis needed to make wise policy. In technical matters we have been well served, but not with regard to issues of population and diversity. The policy failure is not limited to the present federal government. It goes back decades, as does the failure of the nation’s brain trust. Correction will necessitate tackling the intellectual and ideological corruption of the humanities and social sciences by reintroducing some intellectual diversity and free speech, the only way to reestablish open-minded scholarship and teaching.

Frank Salter is an Australian urban anthropologist and ethologist based in Europe who studies organisations and society using the methods and concepts of behavioural biology. He consults to business and government on human relations and ethnicity. His publications are listed at his website here…

[ii] Salter, F. K. (2008). "Evolutionary analyses of ethnic solidarity: An overview." People and Place 16(2): 15-25.
[iii] Re. corruption and growth: Mauro, P. (1995). "Corruption and growth." Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3): 681—712.
Re. economic growth: Alesina, A., R. Baqir, et al. (1999). "Public goods and ethnic divisions."Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(November): 1243—1284.
Easterly, W. and R. Levine (1997). "Africa’s growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions."Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(November): 1203—1250.
Re. foreign aid: Masters, W. and M. McMillan (2004). Ethnolinguistic diversity, government, and growth. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass123-147.
For overview see: Salter, F. K. (2004). Ethnic diversity, foreign aid, economic growth, social stability, and population policy: A perspective on W. Masters and M. McMillan’s findings. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass:148-171.
[iv] McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, et al. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology. K. S. Cook and J. Hagan. Palo Alto, California, Annual Review. 27: 415-444.
[v] Sanderson, S. and T. Vanhanen (2004). Reconciling the differences between Sanderson’s and Vanhanen’s results. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass119-120.
[vi] Salter, F. K., Ed. (2002). Risky transactions. Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. Oxford and New York, Berghahn.
Salter, F. K., Ed. (2004). Welfare, ethnicity, & altruism: New data & evolutionary theory. London, Frank Cass.
Leigh, A. (2006). "Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity." The Economic Record 82(258): 268-280.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture." Scandinavian Political Studies 30: 137-174.
Healy, E. (2007). "Ethnic diversity and social cohesion in Melbourne." People and Place 15(4): 49-64.
[vii] Rummel, R. J. (1997). "Is collective violence correlated with social pluralism?" Journal of Peace Research 34(3): 163—176.
[viii] Alesina, A. and E. Spolaore (2003). The size of nations. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. 
[ix] Cashdan, E. (2001). "Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: A cross-cultural study." Current Anthropology 42(5): 760 – 765.
[x] MacDonald, K. (2001). "An integrative evolutionary perspective on ethnicity." Politics and the Life Sciences 20(1): 67-79.
[xi] Salter, F. K. (2002). "Estimating ethnic genetic interests: Is it adaptive to resist replacement migration?" Population and Environment 24(2): 111—140.
[xii] Mill, J. S. (1960). Chapter XVI: On nationality. Representative government. Three essays by John Stuart Mill. J. S. Mill. London, Oxford University Press380—388, p. 381.
[xiii] Ibid., p. 382.
[xv] Berg, C. (2010). "Open the borders." Policy 26(1): 3-7.
[xvi] Borjas, G. J. (2004). "Increasing the supply of labor through immigration: Measuring the impact on native-born workers." Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder. [http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/Papers/cis504.pdf]
[xvii] Connor, W. (1978). "A nation is a nation, is a state, is an ethnic group, is a . . ." Ethnic and Racial Studies 1(4): 378-400.
[xviii] Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
[xix] Alesina, A. and R. Wacziarg (1998). Little countries: Small but perfectly formed. The Economist63-65.
[xx] Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[xxi] Blainey, G. (1984). All for Australia. North Ryde, Australia, Methuen Haynes. 
[xxii] Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.
[xxiii] Zevallos, Z. (2005). "’It’s like we’re their culture’: Second-generation migrant women discuss Australian culture." People and Place 13(2): 41-49.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Claim on Claim for perpetuity



Bruce Moon: Ngai Tahu’s river of cash

With assets now reported to exceed $1-billion and ability to trade as a tax-exempt charity, Ngai Tahu have become a financial force to be reckoned with, courted by public bodies. Reports that "Ngai Tahu are good for Dunedin" and complaints that Southland is missing out on their beneficence attest to this. Ngai Tahu greed appears to know no bounds and there is no sign that the flow of cash from taxpayers to the tribe is likely to end. Part two of this three-part series shows that the wealthy South Island tribe has been receiving settlements for 146 years.

1. Ngai Tahu complained that reserves allocated under the Kemp purchase 20 years earlier were inadequate and in 1868 a further 4,930 acres were granted. This was their first settlement.

2 Though Ngai Tahu had declared themselves happy with this settlement, by 1872 they had started to complain again and sent a petition to government with absurd claims such as that they would have been killed if they had not signed Kemp's deed of purchase. Nevertheless the claims were treated seriously, leading to the chief judge of the Land Court stating in 1876 that he could see "no ground whatever ... for [their] position" and that "if [they] were Europeans [there was] no reason why any favourable consideration should be given to [them]." Even so, he recommended that they should be dealt with "in a parental and liberal spirit". This case when there was no merit in a grievance is an example of what the Tribunal found to be acting with "dishonour and injustice ... high-handedness and arrogance". It was not the only time this was the Tribunal's opinion. Really!

Complaints continued until the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 was passed, 142,463 acres being granted to settle 4063 "landless" tribal members. - the second Ngai Tahu settlement.

Notwithstanding the continual disputes, 250 Ngai Tahu signed an illuminated address to Premier Seddon in 1902 as he was about to depart for the coronation of King Edward VII. This begins: "Right Honourable Sir, ─ As you are about to leave our shores to represent our country at the coronation of our Most Noble King, we therefore (members of the Ngai Tahi tribe) regard this a fitting opportunity to express to you the very high esteem in which you are held by us." With more in this vein, one concluding remark is "your name will ever live in the land of the Maoris" [sic]. One Te Tau of Karitane (old Waikouaiti) at about this time gave his son the Christian names "Richard John Seddon". I knew R.J.S. Te Tau personally

Clearly Ngai Tahu were doing well. A correspondent to the Taranaki Herald in 1909 praises them in saying that they "are vastly more energetic and progressive and aim at higher ideals than do most of the Native people I have met in many parts of the North Island." (1)

3. Complaints continued with one in 1920 by Tiemi Hipi and 916 other Ngai Tahu about the Kemp purchase yet again. In 1944 the Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act, described in the act as a full and final settlement, was passed, £300,000 in 30 annual payments of £10,000 being awarded to them. This was their third settlement.

4. When payments were due to cease in 1973, further complaints arose that this settlement had not been discussed widely enough. These were rejected by Whetu Tiurikatene-Sullivan, MP for Southern Maori, who stated that 109 formal resolutions in favour of the compensation offered were accepted at around 80 meetings. Nevertheless annual payments of $20,000 in perpetuity were awarded to the tribe. This was their fourth settlement.

5. When the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985 was passed allowing claims back to 1840, Henare Rakiihia Tau and the Ngai Tahu Trust Board brought up all their old claims again and added a few more, leading to a payout to the tribe in 1997 of $170 million and numerous other benefits including the right to all the unclaimed greenstone in the South Island. This was their fifth settlement.

6. A "top-up" generously granted by Treaty Negotiations Minister Doug Graham, who appeared intent on throwing away taxpayer money, meant Ngai Tahu last year received their sixth payout, of $68.5-million. I remark that with my acquaintance with members of the tribe over what is approaching 80 years, I do not recall ever once hearing complaints of their being treated unfairly by white members of the community.

The Ngai Tahu agreement, like that of Waikato-Tainui, was reached in an environment in which the government argued that all treaty settlements should total no more than $1-billion dollars, with the settlement cap called a “fiscal envelope”. The relativity clause that the tribe would receive 16.1 percent of anything paid to other tribes that exceeded $1-billion in 1994 dollars. After much prompting, the government conceded that the $1-billion mark was crossed in June last year. Nevertheless, Ngai Tahu is demanding more and has entered arbitration with the Crown over interpretation of the clauses that detail how the relativity payment should be calculated.

Reasonable people might think that, at least where Ngai Tahu are concerned, that is the end of the matter, with the tribal elite living in luxurious style. Regrettably that is far from the case. We are informed that to consider the matter closed is "not the Maori way" so that in future we may expect more and more outrageous claims to which a succession of weak governments will submit as in the recent past.

In view of the fact that Ngai Tahu have already received five settlements, most of them described as "full and final", that the tribe is wanting more than the $68.5-million top-up received last year, that there will be numerous more top-ups as remaining tribes settle. Therefore, Ngai Tahu officials have many reasons to feel optimistic about more in the future.

The first part of this series, "Ngai Tahu as they were", may be read at http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/bruce-moon-ngai-tahu-as-they-were.html. Part 3, titled "Ngai Tahu claim deceit" will be published here next week.

1. W.W. Smith, Taranaki Herald, LV, 1390, 10th March 1909, p2.

Johnny Can't read 1955 then Johnny still can't read1982 and is it any better now?

Two excellent books on the subject are Rudolf Flesch's "Why Johnny Can't Read and What You Can Do About It" (written in 1955) and "Why Johnny Still Can't Read -- A New Look at the Scandal of Our Schools" (written in 1982).

www.rhymingreader.com     it is free and to help unwind the damage from comments

Common Core and Communism
By Alan Caruba

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” said Vladimir Lenin who led the revolution that imposed Communism on Russia.

When he wrote, ‘Mein Kampf’, Adolf Hitler said “whoever has the youth has the future.” In his vision for the Nazi Party, education would be the key that ensured that he had ‘the youth’ of Germany fully indoctrinated.

All dictators and authoritarian regimes know that what is taught in their schools offers the greatest opportunity to maintain control over their societies.

That is what has been occurring since the introduction of the Common Core standards that the Obama regime has imposed on our national education system and the good news is that protests against it from concerned parents and others are beginning to increase and gain momentum.

Teachers will tell you that “one size fits all” does not apply in the classroom and never has. Children learn at a different pace with some doing so rapidly while others need extra help and attention. Learning that is entirely dependent on ceaseless testing puts stress on every child and that is the most common complaint about Common Core.

Education in America has been in decline since the 1960s when the teachers unions gained control over the process, putting themselves between the local boards of education and parents. Would it surprise anyone to learn that the Department of Education was established by President Jimmy Carter who signed it into law in 1979? It began operation on May 4, 1980. You will find no reference, no mention of education in the U.S. Constitution and it should not be a function of the federal government.

In a recent commentary by Joy Pullmann in The Daily Caller, she said, “The latest scheme is the field testing of Common Core assessments. This spring more than four million kids will be required to spend hours on tests that have little connection to what they learned in class this year and will provide their teachers and schools no information about what the kids know.”

“Parents who object to this scheme,” said Pullman, “face bullying and harassment from public officials. From New York to Denver to California, some schools are responding by forcing kids who opt out to sit at their desks and do nothing during the several-hour tests. Normal people call that a ‘time out’ and it is a punishment.”

Wyoming has become the first State to block a new set of national science standards that address climate change. In Michigan last year a group of protesters stopped the State from adopting the science standards.

Here are some excerpts of what the science standards teach as “The Essential Principles of Climate Science.”

# “The impacts of climate change may affect the security of nations. Reduced availability of water, food, and land can lead to competition and conflict among humans, potentially resulting in large groups of climate refugees.”

# “Humans may be able to mitigate climate change or lessens its severity by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations through processes that move carbon out of the atmosphere or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

# “The most immediate strategy is conservation of oil, gas, and coal, which we rely on as fuels for most of our transportation, heating, cooling, agriculture, and electricity. Short-term strategies involve switching from carbon-intensive to renewable energy sources, which also requires building new infrastructure for alternative energy sources.”

From “A Framework for K-12 Science Education” children are to be taught that “If Earth’s global mean temperature continues to rise, the lives of humans and other organisms will be affected in many different ways.” Only the Earth’s mean temperature is not rising! The planet is in a natural cooling cycle that is now seventeen years old, meaning that none of the students in today’s schools have ever experienced a single day of “global warming.”

By the end of grade 8, the Framework teaches that “Human activities have significantly altered the biosphere, sometimes damaging or destroying natural habitats and causing the extinction of many other species.”  This, too, is untrue. The U.S. Endangered Species Act, despite listing thousands of species, has not officially “saved” more than a handful at best and this assertion is questionable.

By the end of grade 12, students are expected to believe that “Changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate.” While it is true that there has been an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide this is a good thing because it is an essential factor in the increase of all vegetation that includes food crops and healthier forests. Moreover, this increase does not play any role in the Earth’s climate.

The central theme of these “science standards” is to teach that we should be reducing our use of fossil fuels, the primary energy sources our nation and the world requires. What these standards do in reality is repeat and reinforce federal government laws and regulations to justify its CO2 emissions regulations based on the current method of computing the Social Cost of Carbon, but these "costs" are pure fiction. 

None of the computer models that have predicted global warming over the past four decades have been accurate. None are capable of representing the state of the Earth’s vastly complex climate.

The sooner Common Core is removed from the nation’s education system, the better.

Editor's Note: To learn more or follow the debate on Common Core, visit
The Heartland Institute's "Education Weekly" newsletter that provides data via Common Core Watch.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Surprise of who also seeks victimhood

by Brett Stevens   of   http://www.amerika.org/   an interesting blog

Of the various forms of far-rightist, a personality type keeps emerging. It is not inherent to rightism, but rather to any marginalized belief that is also messianic. 

In this personality type, the mind becomes fixated on a perceived truth, for example the notion that The JewsTM control the world and are behind the downfall of the West. What becomes important then is bringing this idea to others. So important that all conversation must relate to the idea.

However, the idea is chosen in part because others cannot accept it. It is hopelessly divisive. This serves the purpose of the person speaking it, as they are able to act out a familiar pattern: tell the “truth,” have others recoil in horror, and be ostracized and thus retreat in justifiable alienation. 

This keeps the idea-teller in a position of perpetual victimhood, and simultaneously gives them a reason to believe they are being martyred for truth. They told the most important idea; it was rejected, thus it was the fault of others for being weak (“wake up sheeple”) and the idea-teller is the messianic figure who sacrifices all to tell this truth. 

For such a person, the ideal conversation is drive-by. “Your toaster failed? It’s the Jews. What, you don’t believe me? You’re just not ready for the truth. Nevermind, I understand; you’re weak. You just don’t want to accept the obvious. But me, I need to tell the truth as it is, so I hold myself to a higher standard than you.” 

Where did they get this idea? From liberalism, perhaps, but it’s older than that. Even mothers use this idea with their children as a form of manipulation. “Son, you need to study more. You reject this? It’s because you’re immature. Never mind, I tried to tell you.” 

An additional benefit of this approach is that no one is required to do anything. The far rightist comes in, says his or her piece, and then retreats to glorious victimhood. But, since the “sheeple” are unreceptive, nothing more can be done so the retreat is all that happens. This enables the far-rightist to go find some like minds, hoist some beers and listen to some droning angry punk music. 

If I were opposed to right-wing ideas, I would endorse as many of these people as possible. I would give them money and keep them out of jail. I would get them housing in hip and happening urban areas. They are excellent marketing tools against right wing ideas because their goal is always to alienate other people and then be unreasonable. 

They convert more people from vaguely right-wing positions to liberalism with their behavior than could be done with a million Superbowls of ad coverage. The only possible solution is to legitimize far-right ideas by removing them from the messianic approach and transferring them instead to the more workmanlike modus of regular conservatism. 

Originally published at Amerika.org

Price of green energy electricity


  •      http://www.thegwpf.org/jurgen-kronig-energy-policy-in-germany-big-problems-in-europes-powerhouse/   

  • I did read else where that Germans are paying 21 billion to receive green power that is only worth 2 billion. Begs the question just who is getting the rest of the money  in the video     
  • This hilarious video from a German national TV broadcast instantly disproves both:   http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/23/Germany-discovers-sense-of-humour-loses-faith-in-green-energy

  • Date: 27/03/14
  • Jürgen Krönig, Policy Network

The coalition agreement between the German Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democrats (CDU) has seen SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel become Minister for Economy and Energy in the Merkel cabinet. In a country with spiralling energy costs, he faces a daunting challenge to balance industrial competitiveness, social justice, green goals and energy security.

[...] Sigmar Gabriel, the SPD leader in charge of the Economy and Energy portfolio, is without doubt the most important minister in the cabinet of Angela Merkel but he is facing the most difficult task too. His job is to secure the competitiveness of Germany and its industries and he has to reform the German energy revolution, the “Energiewende”, which cannot be done without upsetting what the scientist James Lovelock in his book “The vanishing face of Gaia – a final warning” called the “green – industrial complex” that has established itself over the last twenty or so years and is determined to defend its vested interests, not least the enormous subsidies for wind turbines. Lovelock predicted then that “Europe’s massive use of wind for baseload electricity will be remembered as one of the great industrial follies of the twenty first century”.
Energiewende is committed to Germany’s energy transition to 100% renewables.Furthermore, Sigmar Gabriel will have to find a way to explain how the architects of the Energiewende came to ignore its flawed design based on miscalculations, lack of realism and wishful thinking. This uncomfortable task might be slightly easier because the Energiewende has many political parents, Greens, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats.
One especially disastrous element of the Energiewende, the rushed nuclear exit after Fukushima, was furthermore the responsibility of Merkel’s coalition with the Liberals.Business as usual is no longer an option. Without drastic changes the Energiewende will be even more threatening for Germany’s industrial base. German exports would have been €15bn higher last year if its industry had not paid a premium for electricity compared with international competitors, according to a recent analysis by the Energy Consultancy IHS.Germany’s manufacturing suffered already €52bn in net export losses for the six-year period from 2008 to 2013. The figure was calculated by linking changes in the net volume of German manufacturing exports to changes in energy costs, using an economic model that accounted for other variables such as exchange rates. Almost 60 per cent of the total loss (or €30bn) came in energy-intensive industries: paper, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, non-metallic mineral products and basic metals.
Smaller companies were disproportionately affected. Unlike heavy energy users such as BASF and Thyssen/Krupp, small companies are not eligible for exemptions from the energy bill surcharges that cover the costs of the move to clean energy. Even more worrying for Germany is a clear trend for investment to go abroad. IHS found that direct investment abroad has accelerated at the expense of domestic investment and the cost of energy was the most important driver of this shift. [...]
The utopian dream of an economy powered by renewables is more and more turning into a nightmare. In his recently published book “Klare Worte”, which means “blunt words”, ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, under whom the “green energy revolution” started, is now calling for a revision of this policy; he warns of more damaging and unachievable targets for renewable energy and for CO2 reduction by the EU Commission and advocates a longer life for Germany’s remaining nuclear power stations that according to the official time table will have to shut down in 2022, thus increasing the fear of blackouts in Germany.
But the present coalition government, despite its intention to lower the burden for consumers and industries, is still determined to double the amount of renewables till 2030. So far it does not show any willingness to consider prolonging the life of the remaining nuclear reactors, despite now facing the Ukrainian crisis that should have alerted Berlin and other European capitals to the risk of diminished energy security and growing dependency on Putin’s Russia. [...]
Germany is not alone
Germany is not alone in Europe. The UK and other EU countries are facing similar problems in regards to the price of energy and the competitiveness of industries. But for Germany it is more difficult to turn around and admit mistakes. So much money has been spent, so much prestige and pride is at stake, and, in contrast to the more pragmatic British and the less easily frightened French, green convictions are much more deeply embedded in institutions, in culture, in the media and in politics – and Germany is a country with a strong, long established tradition of anti-modernism, nature worship and suspicion of technological and scientific progress.
During the heyday of climate fears in the last decade, centre-left politicians in Britain and Germany were united in the belief that climate change would be the new mass mobilising topic that would help save their parties. A more likely outcome is that this strategy will neither save the centre-left nor will it help to prevent climate change. The fate of the SPD may serve as an interesting lesson for other centre left parties. It is telling that according to the latest survey only 24% of Germans feel confident about their countries energy policy while 73 percent are dissatisfied and are ill at ease. This may be a warning that Sigmar Gabriel should heed. It is unlikely that most of those 73% demand even more wind turbines that blight so many landscapes of their country already without delivering the life blood on which an industrial nation depends.