New Zealand’s taxpayer-funded apartheid

Posted on April 13, 2014 by KG

‘Healing our dark heart’

Bollocks! This is nothing more than grovelling to a bunch of no-hoper lawbreaking parasites. “Historical grievances” my arse–it’s merely an opportunity for them to grab more from working Kiwis, who have been conditioned to accept that they owe these thuggish primitives something. The article gives a very one-sided account of history and these days, that’s the only side of the story that gets aired.
And I’m still waiting to hear of the maori “thank you” to European Kiwis for dragging them out of their violent, primitive existence and giving them education, housing, decent medical care, welfare payments  and security from inter-tribal murder and cannibalism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to New Zealand’s taxpayer-funded apartheid

  1. thor42 says:
    April 13, 2014 at 10:35

    Agreed, KG.

  2. rivoniaboy says:
    April 13, 2014 at 11:46

    Self governance for whites in South Africa = Apartheid
    Apartheid for Maori in New Zealand = Self governance.

    New Zealand the land of hypocrites.

  3. Cadwallader says:
    April 13, 2014 at 15:27

    We see it all right! There’s nothing to heal and nothing to feel bad about. I expect the payment to Tuhoe is simply to shut them up (for a year or so) and get the coalition support from the maoris before election day in September. It is a putrid and pointless waste of time and $$$$! Tuhoe were not signatories to the treaty yet still they get a gutful of succour from the taxpayer teat. I don’t understand it and sure as hell resent it.

    • KG says:
      April 13, 2014 at 16:18

      I should have made it plain that plenty of Kiwis feel that way, Cad. :oops:
      But far from a majority, and they still vote for that smirking piece of crap.

  4. Lara says:
    April 13, 2014 at 15:55

    John Key has a lot to answer for, he is more treasononous than Clark. Supposed to be a tory. What a joke. NZ is becoming a pithole.

    • KG says:
      April 13, 2014 at 16:16

      I agree 100%, Lara.

    • dondiego says:
      April 13, 2014 at 16:18

      Things like this are just one reason I left that emerging 3rd-world country, Lara.

      Never to return (except maybe for a holiday in a few years after/if I can get an Aussie passport.
      Paying for scumbags to train to kill you “… infamous terror raids” and for more sub-humans to have babies they don’t want that get murdered- and it’s somehow your problem too?

      If you can, get out. N.Z can’t be fixed. I used to think it could, but there’s just too much evidence~http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_unsure.gif

    • Cadwallader says:
      April 13, 2014 at 18:50

      I agree with your sentiment except “more treasonous than Clark.” Beating her in that poll is impossible.

      • The Gantt Guy says:
        April 14, 2014 at 04:40

        Disagree. Completely.

        Yes, Clark was as vile, nasty, corrupt, vicious, petty little man (go on, challenge that one!).

        But even Clark had lines she would not cross. The deals with IWI, for example, are not something that would ever have happened under her reign of terror.

        Unless of course you’re a conspiracy theorist. In which case, the Court’s decision which led to the formation of the Maori Party was too good an opportunity to pass up. Make a deal with Aunty Tari in which Clark would feign an over-reaction to the decision and pass legislation to place the foreshore and seabed into the public ownership. Tari could herself over-react, walk out on Labour and form the Apartheid Party. Clark, knowing that National was led by a prog lib (her very own hand-picked successor for the PM-ship), and that the prog lib National leader would do a deal with Aunty Tari’s party to give away the farm (and the beach, and everything on or under). Thus bringing to fruition her Bolivia-like dream for our little socialist paradise? Quite a conspiracy, even for an evil genius like the Klarkenfuhrer!

        I actually think in terms of deeds and actions, they’re approximately on par (we could debate which treason is the greater – abolishing our rights of appeal to the Privy Council vs. the corrupt deals with IWI and gay marriage). But then, we expect Labour governments to be corrupt. We expect better of National-led governments. Because we’re like Lucy with the football, aren’t we?

        We’re all a bit like our friend Adolf in that respect. Remember him defending Key in the first term, because the second was going to be soooo much better? Well, we’ve all fallen for that one, at least a little. Elect a National government and they’ll reverse the evil the Labour government visited upon us. Except of course they don’t. They rail against it from the Opposition benches, but once in power they like the new authorities gifted to them by the friends in the Labour party, and so they remain. The list is countless, isn’t it? Anyway, here’s what I think it comes down to. Labour-led governments are transformative. Not in a good way, of course, because their ideology is evil, but they do transform, they grab and consolidate power. And when elected, National-led governments don’t have a transforming agenda (because they don’t have an ideology). Their job is to keep getting re-elected. And by the time they take the Treasury benches, the sheep are so used to the reduced confines of their new pens, they don’t complain too much, so there’s no political capital in tearing them down. And so, they remain. Until Labour is re-elected and makes the pens just that little bit smaller.

        • Cadwallader says:
          April 14, 2014 at 15:49

          Still not convinced. Do you assert that there were no treaty settlements under Klark’s watch? What does Key need to do to distance himself from your perception that he is a lib-prog?

          • KG says:
            April 14, 2014 at 16:23

            “What does Key need to do to distance himself from your perception that he is a lib-prog?”

            I can’t speak for Gantt, obviously, but to stop giving away property and money that belongs to all Kiwis to a group based entirely on skin colour wouldn’t be a bad start.

          • The Gantt Guy says:
            April 14, 2014 at 18:50

            Well, for starters, he could quit cuddling up to the Apartheid party – a party which is built entirely on the two planks of racism and socialism. I don’t expect he will ever instruct the Attorney-General to investigate himself on charges of corruption (although he should), but the giving away the farm to corporate IWI would be a good place to start.

            Secondly, he might consider trying to not be a Labour Party PM. Get rid of those socialist policies against which he railed as Leader of the Opposition, such as Working for Families (“Socialism by stealth”), interest-free student loans, etc. etc.

            There are a million and one other examples before we even go near the Cultural Marxism, but those two or three would be a fucking good start. :evil:

  5. the conservative says:
    April 13, 2014 at 17:29

    They reckon the deal with the Tuhoe over the Ureweras won’t affect us, but I can guarantee you within a decade they will be charging us entry.

    • KG says:
      April 13, 2014 at 17:45

      Absolutely.

    • Cadwallader says:
      April 13, 2014 at 18:49

      You’d never want to go in there anyway. I know of hunters who used to enjoy scouring the hills around Lake Waikaremoana but not now. The threats of thuggery from the local iwi are now too palpable. It is best fenced off and forgotten about. In fact, it would be ideal if it was to become its own sovereign state, and was ineligible to receipt of taxpayer largesse.

      • KG says:
        April 13, 2014 at 19:00

        They will NEVER get off the taxpayer tit, Cad.

        • Wombat says:
          April 14, 2014 at 08:02

          Imagine bleeding-heart media wandering around a third world country that actually exists in their own back yard.
          And that’s what you’d get if you gave those folks the land and then cut them off from welfare. A third world country (or province more accurately).
          Even if you gave them funding on an equal per capita basis, you’d still end up with a third world country with the only difference being that you’d have a few ultra-rich Mugabe types rolling around in luxury European sedans while “their people” started dying of 19th century poxes.

          • Wombat says:
            April 14, 2014 at 08:07

            p.s. Said one African of the Belgians while looking at the delapidated rubber plantations in his country, “when they first came here, they took the land by force. If they returned, we would give it to them.”

            The same thing would apply in all “colonised” nations I suspect.

          • KG says:
            April 14, 2014 at 08:36

            “.. you’d have a few ultra-rich Mugabe types rolling around in luxury European sedans”
            Already happening, Wombat.

  6. KG says:
    April 14, 2014 at 05:00

    Gantt just nailed it!http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gifhttp://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

  7. Col. Bunny says:
    April 16, 2014 at 03:26

    You make it sound like cannibalism is a bad thing.