Counter-Currents
New Zealand Race Commissar Incites Violence Against Rightist Dissidents
Kerry Bolton
Commissioner Devoy
1,802 words
Author’s Note:
The following open letter was sent to New Zealand Race Relations commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, in response to reported statements inciting violence against opponents of multiculturalism. The portion of the news article relating to Dame Susan’s comments is appended[1], and the reader is invited to consider whether this writer’s perception of the commissar’s comments are indeed reasonable in calling them an incitement.[2]
Dear Dame Susan,
It is with the utmost concern that I read your reported comments equating the so-called ‘Far Right’ with Islamic extremists, associating the ‘Right’ with terrorism, and demonising those who have views on race relations contrary to your own.[1]
I am not a member of any organisation, and do not support the approach of any of those groups mentioned in the article. I am 61, have obeyed the law, paid my rates and taxes, raised a family, worked, established a home, and tried to raise a small voice whenever I see an injustice in my community, a potential for harm, and in particular in regard to animal welfare. I am extensively published in the scholarly media across a range of subjects, more so than most New Zealand academics, and I am a fellow of several learned societies.
However, after over forty years of research and contemplation, and the ability to apply a dialectical approach to any issue (in other words, to form an opinion based on the best information available, and to change that opinion on the basis of new insights), I am not an enthusiast for the multicultural experiment. Further, I have a preference for Mozart, Vivaldi, Gluck, and Beethoven, rather than African, Polynesian, or Asian rhythms. I have a preference for Michelangelo or Monet over an African fetish carving, or Aboriginal rock art, or the canvasses of an Ofili. I am, frankly, Eurocentric. I do not believe a blending of the cultures bodes well for any of them. What results is a bastardous mix such as that perpetrated in the smeared faeces on a Picasso or Ofili canvas, or the Hip Hop assiduously promoted by MTV and the US State Department.
I also value a sense of community, and community arises through association between individuals and families of like-temperament, forged, largely epigenetically, as an ethnos over millennia. A community and ethnos does not arise through the proclamation of laws and human rights declarations imposed by force. A constitution or a human rights office does not form a ‘people’, as the experience of over two hundred years of the USA as a so-called ‘propositional nation’ indicates. When diverse peoples are imposed on each other, through sundry artificial contrivances, the result is not a community, but escalating bitterness, alienation, and a loss of community.
What for example is an ‘American people’? It is still an amorphous mass held together by what our poet Rex Fairburn called the ‘cash nexus.’
It is this amorphous mass that is being encouraged as a deliberate policy by cosmopolitan money-interests. The Leftist and Jewish intellectual icon Professor Noam Chomsky summarised the position of the ‘Far Right’ precisely when he said of this process:
Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. Over the long-term you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as producers and consumers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant and usually a nuisance.[3]
The subversive character of this as a deliberate programme to enable globalisation was indicated by Wikileaks when exposing the so-called ‘Rivkin Project’, named after the U.S. Ambassador to France in 2010 (Charles Rivkin, Minority engagement report, U.S. Embassy, Paris).
As Chomsky, a Leftist intellectual, and a renowned authority on power structures, implies, multiculturalism is part of the globalization process. It is not new or ‘modern’ or ‘progressive.’ We have seen the process at a certain stage of empire through the millennia, as a significant factor, at least, in the decay of civilizations. I am not referring to miscegenation, which does not seem to have been a factor in cultural decay, but in the mixing of ethos rather than genes.[4] Today the science of epigenetics, rather than genetics, is starting to offer an explanation as to the mechanics of this, in regard to both the rise and fall of ethni.
Irresponsible call for mob violence
As you will know the ‘Far Right’ has been met with violence on numerous occasions both here and overseas. In the infamous Charlottesville riot, which is apparently the type of situation you wish to occur in New Zealand, a communist group named Redneck Revolt showed up heavily armed and had called for others to take guns.
Your comments, if reported correctly, seek to demonize those who object to multiculturalism. Moreover, they are an implicit call to violence and mob action against those who do not agree with state policy on such matters. It is the greatest irresponsibility for you to have issued what amounts to a declaration calling for violent opposition against ‘Right-wing’ activities, which tend to be law-abiding.
A conciliatory position would be to sit down and talk to the leadership of these groups, such as they even exist, instead of regurgitating what amounts to the ultra-Left slogan screamed throughout the world: ‘No platform, no free speech, for fascists’ (sic); generally a prelude to attacks of an often particularly cowardly nature.
I recall in 2004 my wife and I went to the National Front flag day event, that ended in a riot, bottles thrown by the Left, conflict with police, a violent opposition organised by anarchists of the euphemistically named ‘Peace Action,’ a non-assuming, harmless tertiary student being chased through the streets and left traumatised; and an individual isolated and surrounded by a mob, and beaten, then pursued, dazed with blood running down his face, while the likes of Val Morse, and other ‘pacifists’ screeched in his ears in their typically hysterical manner. It is transparent from your reported statements, that this is the type of action you are trying to incite.
I have previously asked of you in regard to the abortive attempt to form a European students cultural association at Auckland University, why such an association was considered so objectionable, when every other ethnos has their own association, including Zionist youth, whose ideology was deemed by the UN General Assembly to be ‘racist’ and based on ‘racial discrimination’? Why the double-standard? You apparently have no answer.
When you say that the ‘Far Right’ should expect to be confronted by others exercising their ‘freedom of speech’ we have really reached the stage of the politics of confrontation, encouraged by you, on the pretext of opposing this. When has the ‘Far Right’ ever attempted to confront those with whom they disagree in a mob way, such as is experienced year after year by the National Front when they attempt to hold an annual event in support of the traditional New Zealand flag? I note that it is a public, family event, with women and children present, and that your foot soldiers, prominent amongst whom are Anarchists and Trotskyites, are hell-bent on preventing any such events; not just by verbally disagreeing or distributing literature or holding banners, but attempting to physically prevent any such action, and invariably in conflict with the police.
You justify such histrionics and bigotry by attempting to demonise those who question the wisdom of pursuing a multicultural agenda. You increasingly use an ill-defined term, ‘hate speech,’ to set the stage for state repression through further laws, until tyranny is reached.
You allude to swastika flags; a nonsense, but one might observe the communist flags and symbols among your foot soldiers; an ideology that is arguably the most atrocious in history and one moreover justified in the name of ‘equality’, or as your ideological predecessors, the Jacobins, put it, amidst the genocide of the Vendée, another ‘hate group’ that wanted to retain their identity: ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’
Should violence occur at one of the very rare ‘extreme Right’ functions, are you going to take responsibility for incitement? These ‘anti-fascists,’ as they designate themselves, are in large part observably psychotic, and display a range of psychiatric symptoms. You are figuratively giving ammunition and approval to the mentally disturbed to vent their spleen against those, few in numbers, who have been demonized. What you have said, reportedly, amounts to incitement.
Sincerely,
K. R. Bolton
Notes
[1] Megan Gattey, “How Ordinary People Are Radicalized Online To Become Terrorists,” Stuff, 15 February 2018. The relevant portion reads:
Islamic State terror groups are not the only groups promoting radical views online in this country; far-right groups in New Zealand are also extremely active online.
Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy told Stuff reporter Megan Gattey in January that people only needed to take a quick look at the National Front’s website to find offensive narrative.
“Go on to the National Front website and the propaganda there is unashamedly racist. All New Zealanders have the right to oppose this kind of korero in our country.
“I don’t want our beautiful country to become one where it’s normal and OK for people to fly their swastika flags, or walk on a White Ribbon march in their Nazi uniforms and boots.
“Organisations like the National Front and Right Wing Resistance that espouse their views publicly by exercising their freedom of speech should be prepared for the rest of us to exercise our freedom of speech when we publicly disagree with them,” she said.
Professor Paul Spoonley, Massey University pro-vice chancellor of the college of humanities and social sciences and a specialist in right-wing hate, said more leaders should speak out about hate crime, as Devoy had done.
“I would like to see this country become a lot more considered around things like hate crime.”
[2] It could be added that had New Zealand founding fathers such as in particular Richard Seddon and William Pember Reeves been on the hustings today defending the white workers against alien immigration, which they perceived as being used by international capital, they would be lambasted by the Establishment as ‘Far Right’ and ‘neo-Nazis’, as would the early labour movement.
[3] Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power (New York: Vintage Books, 2002), 88-89.
[4] K. R. Bolton, The Decline and Fall of Civilisations (London: Black House Publishing, 2017).
15 comments
The left’s new fad is to claim racialists are dangerous. By cherry-picking the few racialist individuals who do bad things, they hope to create public hysteria in order to justify taking away freedoms. Meanwhile, if Maori, blacks, Muslims, etc, do bad things, they tell us to love them and realize they’re not all that way.
Not cherry-picking them. Producing them.
Dr. Bolton,
An excellent letter! This sums up the rightist opposition to multicultural policy quite well. I liked the use of Chomsky (tongue-in-cheek, I assume, at least in part) as well. Everyone should be aware that capitalism does not equal conservatism, tradition, or a rightist orientation. I enjoyed reading this letter.
Chomsky is indeed a master in the analysis of power relations. See ‘On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures’.
No, not tongue in cheek. I think Chomsky precisely sums up the Rightist position. He made similar comments as to why the anti-apartheid movement got such favourable treatment from the media. However, as a long-time leftist his head and his heart seem conflicted over such issues.
Ok. Interesting. I did not know about Chomsky’s remarks on the anti-apartheid movement. Thank you for following up.
Devoyd of any sense, like all her ilk.
Globalization needs this breaking down of the national majorities because they are who give legitimacy to the national-state. Globalization needs the dissolution of the hard borders, and thus of the disappearance of the states, in order capital (investments), transnational corporations, manufactured goods, and people (labor) to be able to move freely all over the planet, without border impediments (tariffs, state laws, etc.).
Globalization needs first to dissolve the ethnic-national majorities who form the core-nation of the states and for this immigration (bringing foreigners, diluting the majority) , stirring of the internal minorities and of the marginals (homosexuals and other anti-social zombies), creating internal strife (feminism, for instance) are their tools. If the elites fail to accomplish this there will always be the danger that the majority will reassert their will, collective will, politically and put their collective interest first, and this in turn interfere with the “market” (global market) and corporate interests.
How seriously can we really take Miss Devoy, who appears to be happy looking like a man dressed in a woman’s garb?
Chomsky’s comment on capitalism’s blindness to racial difference is telling.
Socially liberal globalists often cite ‘diversity’ as an ideal to be pursued – and the diversity they mean is usually racial / ethnic diversity. On one level, I share their view. The human race is fortunate to include many different peoples who have evolved separately over thousands of years.
The current programs of mass immigration and multiculturalism being imposed on white nations deliver diversity in a narrow, local sense. Sydney, London, Vancouver and Auckland are all more ethnically diverse than they were 50 years ago. But this means that longer term the distinct white ethnicities and cultures local to these places will be either displaced, eliminated completely or changed into something less distinct – more uniform. Going back to Chomsky, this is presumably a happy outcome for capitalism because uniformity facilitates trade and economic growth.
So why do socially liberal globalists support policies which (1) result in less ethnic diversity, when viewed globally and (2) align neatly with the capitalist wet dream of one world, one market, one people? There are socially liberal globalists who are also pro-business, but typically they’re not the ones making shrill demands to dismantle borders.
As a younger man, I indulged in conspiracy theories in trying to answer this question. I now think – to paraphrase journalist Peter Bergen – that incompetence is a better explanation than conspiracy in most human activity. Socially liberal globalists, like Commissioner Devoy, are simply so blinkered by their narrow view of the world that questions about the rationale for, and effect of their ‘progressive’ (sic) policies don’t register.
.
“why do socially liberal globalists support policies which (1) result in less ethnic diversity, when viewed globally and (2) align neatly with the capitalist wet dream of one world, one market, one people? ”
Because that’s what pays off. Money, positions in system (state and corporate jobs), easy-living “working” a propagandists (journalists, intellectuals, etc)…All these come form the elites, from the transnational corporations who subsidize what advantages them.
That’s probably true. As a motivator, money talks. But I do wonder whether, deep in their hearts, those who actively promote such policies know what they’re doing (and don’t care), or if they have somehow convinced themselves that they’re doing good, or whether they just never think about it at all.
From what I observe, it’s not thinking at all for most. Our cultural environment actively supports this kind of waking unconsciousness.
.
“But I do wonder whether, deep in their hearts, those who actively promote such policies know what they’re doing..”
Yes, they DO. ..I know that because I grew up in a Eastern-European communist country and I saw the rapid collapse of “the system” in the late 1980s. I witnessed how fast, in matter of weeks, the former communists (nomenklatura, politrucs, political activists, intellectuals, journalists, high-ranking officials, etc.) changed the tune and became overnight anti-communists, democrats, liberals, human-rights defenders, etc. It was a sight to watch.
Most people are not into deep thinking about themselves and society. They understand “instinctively” that they have to conform the if they want to live and prosper.
The same was the case in the communist states. People were not shot for criticizing the system, that was true only at the beginning, when the system installed, i.e. 1920s-1930s in Soviet Union, and in 1950s in the East-European countries occupied by the Soviet Union at the end of WW2. Afterwards people were simply fired, lost their jobs, and that was enough because without an income they were “dead”. Also promotion, advancement in social hierarchy/careers were dependent on publicly supporting the system and its ideology.
It was a soft dictatorship, violence was not (no longer) necessary to get everybody conforming. Just as is now the case in the West.
There are some who do believe, but very few. Some who psychotic or stupid and who can believe anything, others who are young, idealistic and naive, and whose strong moral feelings/impulses are easily manipulated by the more sophisticated adults and the system controlled media, other may be old-boomers clinging nostalgically on the ideals of their 1960s youth.
But most just sense instinctively which side of the loaf is buttered and are aware of the risks of not conforming. Thus they just ‘play the game’, do what they perceive as being their immediate and pressing self-interest. They would flip in matter of days if the system changes.
Here a good analysis of Samuel Huntington on the interests at stake in the present system. The intelligentsia is dependent on, and subsidized by, the system.
“Transnational ideas and people fall into three categories: universalist, economic and
moralist… Economic transnationalism is rooted in the bourgeoisie, moralistic transnationalism in the intelligentsia”
http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/04-03_The_National_Interest._Samuel_Huntington_Davos_Man.pdf
Susan Devoy – devoid of any common sense, knowledge, wisdom, experience and typical of the small mindedness of today’s worldwide liberal elite; prevalent especially among female leaders such as the UK’s Amber Rudd and Germany’s Angela Merkel. Products all of today’s University system – all departments debauched and debased as they are by pseudo-marxism. We don’t regard anything as worthwhile or trustworthy if produced by Russian academia post-1917, until the fall of the Soviet Union, and we should likewise regard anything produced elsewhere in the white world’s academia if produced post-1945.
Jez Turner:
I couldn’t agree with you more. Academic output-both in terms of the abilities and intellect of people graduating, as well as in material-has been only a watery dish since 1945. Any progress made since that time was in engineering only and at that almost exclusively the refinement of previously made discoveries. Instead of intellectual progress we are served promoted stardom, such as with the false Einstein or the celebrated Hawkings-the former’s achievement being a Jew, the latter’s, a cripple in the first place. If you don’t agree with Einstein’s dogmas, you’re fired, and, even worse, the “scientific community” finds nothing wrong with that. (I am referring of the dismissal of the phycicist Eremano in 2013 because he measured a speed exceeding that of light). Yesterday I came across a flier announcing a new major at the university, ” Sexuality, Gender and Queer”. What does one learn that is not pure drivel in such a major? I can’t imagine what that might be, nor how one is earning a wage with the degree. But this is typical for the degeneracy of the Univerity system in the West.
Liberalism rots the heart. We can see it all around us. Hence, we have Merkel and May, “Ministresses of Defence” (should be “of War”, as the business of the military is war). In Germany, this “Ministress of Defence” is known for introducing kindergartens in the military barracks, and possibly tanks for people with physical disabilities. Obviously someone with qualifications at work here. Merkel dissolves a nation, no one really opposes this disaster, they who do, are extremists and get the secret service and police sent after them. There are no mass gatherings signalling a general displeasure with the state of things. Hopefully, this means: “Not Yet”.
And this commissioner Devoy is behaving as a racist according to her own dictionary, but for the new man, there is no contradiction in proclaiming principles and arbitrarily making use of them.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment