Key’s “Socialist Streak” Pt. 2

Interesting to see how the Stuff story was constantly updated yesterday. The original photo of an obsequiously smirking Key was replaced by one of him looking stern and authoritative. The text was altered to try and undo some of the initial impressions. I wonder if the author of the original piece (Kate Chapman) was pleased about that.

As some commenters and other bloggers have pointed out, the edits to the original news article really made Key look even worse, as they revealed more truths concerning his damaged manner of thinking. Not that there was ever much doubt about it before, but Key has now placed himself fairly and squarely on the far left of the political spectrum.

He can’t have read the National Party founding principles. Especially the part that states that one of their key duties is-

“to combat communism and socialism”

or if he has read them, he’s suffering the same kind of comprehension problems that all leftists suffer from. Here’s just one glaring example of his rank political ignorance, as reported in Kate Chapman’s modified/ updated article-

When Prime Minister John Key said all New Zealanders had a “socialist streak” it referred to their caring for others, he says. … “I think New Zealand is a very caring country, I think New Zealanders do have a heart.”

Got that have you readers? Socialists, unlike those nasty selfish Conservatives, “care for others” and “have a heart”.

Asked if he had a socialist streak he said “absolutely” and pointed to Government programmes to help people during the global recession. “I’m a product of the welfare state.”

So here we have a political party that has as its founding principles the objective of “combating communism and socialism”, and its current leader boasts of being himself a socialist and a welfarist, and makes pathetic school boy level statements that prove he buys into some of the most banal Marxist propaganda that is out there. Worse, he seeks to actively advance and promote and advocate for the poisonous corrosive ideology that Sid Holland so rightly wanted kept out of NZ.

Yet even after its leader is exposed as holding political perceptions no National Party member should hold, and acting, with the party’s blessing, to promote ideology National once professed to stand against, there are still many people in the blogosphere and elsewhere who stubbornly reject the thesis that the National Party is today filled with traitors who have taken it far from its political roots. So far, that it is today really just a slightly less left branch of the Labour Party. Speaking the same idiotic language. Led by the same posturing propaganda speiling fools. Supported by the same supplicant leftist/ Marxist useful idiots who know not what they really are.

Here’s some words spoken directly to you John Key you contemptible poseur, and pointing out some simple political facts, some home truths that you, given your position as leader of the National Party, should be utterly ashamed not to know.

Conservatives do not lack any of the compassion that the left like to so lavishly attribute to themselves and themselves alone. Conservatives are not nasty or selfish. These are perceptions that are founded in left wing propaganda and slander and political opportunism, and it is especially disgusting to hear them so unwittingly expressed by the leader of the party Sid Holland helped establish, and that he led for so many years.

The reality is that Conservatives merely seek a better way to achieve better outcomes, and you should know this you pathetic excuse for a politician. Not only should you know it, you should be out there in the public’s face and telling them that rather than so outrageously and conversely doing the Labour Party’s slander and propaganda for them.

John Key is just an appalling buffoon who has through a combination of ignorance and vanity squandered one of the best chances NZ ever had to escape the slow socialist death spiral. More, and as demonstrated by their slavish support for Key, practically the whole National Party is a collection of like weak kneed surrender monkeys who will go down in history as the most despicable bunch of cowards, poseurs and losers in NZ politics since WWII.

After once again reading the Stuff article and its updates, I find myself for once lacking the words to fully express my contempt for these repugnant, shameless and unprincipled compromisers, and I despair for NZ being so deeply in the thrall of such a counterfeit man as John Key has so clearly, (by his own words), exposed himself to be. This country must be restored, and the first step towards this objective must be to restore the National Party, and the very first part of this first step is to remove this awful and foolish man from the leadership.

28 thoughts on “Key’s “Socialist Streak” Pt. 2

  1. Well said Red. I couldn’t agree more. They are nothing but a bunch of traitors. Traitors to the people who voted for them and who had such high hopes of reversing the slimy left’s stranglehold on this country.

    National has been a massive disappointment since being elected. As the old saying goes ‘Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’

    Like

  2. National has been a massive disappointment since being elected.

    They think in almost exactly the same way as the Labour party, with Key apparently not even understanding the depths of his own political ignorance.

    Like

  3. The man is an ex money trader, ffs and people like Adolf talk about him having “business sense”!
    As though making lots of money trading money automatically makes him a businessman and a conservative. Yeah, right…

    Like

  4. Great stuff again Red.
    Massive disappointment for sure.Have watched some of the new National MP’s like Tremain keel over when he I thought he had potential.Not any more.
    Foss who has been promoted, is another who has made his money as a FX dealer. He does not understand how to run a business.

    Like

  5. It’s disgusting that he even attempts to associate socialists and their doctrine as a “caring” ideology – for themselves maybe. Socialism is a form of systematic enslavement by the government.

    The great caring socialists of world history: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Clark… yes, people were so fortune to be living under such caring socialist dictators.

    Like

  6. Exactly right, Jay. 200 million dead last century, thanks to their “caring, sharing” nature. Just proves how fundamentally and ideologically fuckwitted Key really is.

    Like

  7. “The great caring socialists of world history: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Clark… yes, people were so fortune to be living under such caring socialist dictators.”

    So Totalitarian Communism = Socialist Democracy? Maybe just stick to left vs right keep it simple for yourself. How many did Clark kill again 🙂

    Key is a panderer, he’s trying to keep the ‘masses’ happy (and the numbers suggests he’s doing that quite well). If the far left (lets say thestandard.org.nz) and the far right (lets say here) are both pissed off at him then I’d say he’s pitch perfect. Politics in a Democracy has to be more practical than ideological, no point in having a hard line conservative policy if you’re not elected to implement it. Maybe some Francoism would be more to your liking?

    Like

  8. “If the far left (lets say thestandard.org.nz) and the far right (lets say here) are both pissed off at him then I’d say he’s pitch perfect. ”
    Wrong, on so many levels. If you think this site is “far right” you need to get out a bit more–or get an education.
    The PM is supposed to lead, not pander. Perfect middle-of-the-roadism is simply supporting the status quo and if there’s anything NZ needs urgently right now, it’s to have the rotten status quo derailed. Overturned. Mended.
    And nobody here is even suggesting a “hard line conservative policy”, merely some integrity and a recognition that there are serious problems that need to be addressed by somebody with the integrity and balls to do that.
    key is not that person.
    So your lily-livered sneering remarks show you up for what you are–merely another Kiwi petit socialist apologist for a slimeball.

    Like

  9. I wasn’t advocating for Key or being an ‘apologist’ just stating the way I see things.

    “… by somebody with the integrity and balls to do that. key is not that person.”

    But if he was, would he be half as popular, or even elected at all? See my point? Key is a product of the popularity based system we have (was that was being an apologist woops!) . Maybe reforming the political system (STV or something) will give the Government a stronger mandate to do the unpopular, but I doubt it.

    I’m sure the standard.org.nz don’t think that they are far left either. If this blog isn’t far right and I need to get out more (could be true :D) then some links to those blogs that are would be nice.

    Calling me a cowardly, little, socialist, apologist for a slime-ball is a bit harsh, but this is the internet so no harm done.

    Like

  10. Smithy, I don’t have any links to genuinely “far-right” sites, because they appear to be populated by the same kind of lunatic which inhabits the left. I used to feel that I needed a shower after visiting them.
    But there is a huge gulf between genuine conservatives and the far right and I get pretty damn irritated when I see the words “far right” appended to anybody even slightly right of centre.

    Like

  11. Less government, lower taxes. The right for our Western culture to survive. If that’s “far right” then the term no longer has any meaning.

    Like

  12. KG, you’re dealing with someone who (likely) believes the Tea Party movement is a far-right organisation. I suspect you’re wasting your breath. Anyone who believes that someone who angers both the far-left and Conservatives (there are *no* – visible – “far-right” dwellers in New Zealand) is pitch-perfect is de facto celebrating mediocrity, appeasement and a distinct lack of leadership. A perfect example of the New Zealand voter. Happy to vote for either brand of leftism, and will choose which party based on how much of Other People’s Money they receive.

    Like

  13. When I say pitch perfect I mean he’s right where he wants to be.

    “Happy to vote for either brand of leftism, and will choose which party based on how much of Other People’s Money they receive.”

    This is correct.

    Like

  14. Smithy, if by “This is correct” you mean this is how you cast your vote, then YOU are what is wrong with New Zealand. YOU are why a once-proud and independent people are now a nation of grovelling, whining entitlement-mongers and bludgers. And YOU are the very reason why the Universal Franchise is an utter and abject failure.

    If, on the other hand, I have misconstrued your comment, I apologise.

    Like

  15. Well in some sense this is what Democracy is, people voting for what’s in their best interests.
    But no that’s not how I cast my vote. I think you are taking things a bit far with your assessment of NZ as a nation of ‘grovelling, whining entitlement-mongers and bludgers’. I still feel proud and independent.

    Like

  16. No Smithy, that isn’t what Democracy is. That is what it has been perverted into by allowing people with no “skin in the game” to vote. In reality, there should be no representation without contribution. Only those nett contributors to the Treasury ought to be able to have a say in how the Treasury funds are spent. That is one way to harness the rapacious apetite of craven appeasers and big-government statists like John key and his ilk.

    And you may still feel proud and independent, but in reality that is just because you are the frog sitting in the pot whose heat has been turned up gradually. Massively regressive legislation, and massively regressive government policies outside of legislation, which would have caused rioting in the streets had they been introduced en masse, have been brought in by successive governments over long periods. A few examples are the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the Marine & Coastal Area Act, the Emissions Trading Scam, New Zealand cosying up to the UN through various treaties like the Kyoto protocol, accepting quotas of refugees (who asked Kiwis if they wanted to import people from cultures completely counter to the New Zealand way of life?). Had any government of any stripe set out these as a strategy for New Zealand they would have been run out of Wellington. The fact is, New Zealand is a perfect example of the left’s successful implementation of the theories of Gramsci, and of ratchet socialism. The fact you can’t, or choose not to, see it is just further proof of its success.

    Like

  17. Well I did say in some sense.

    I’m not sure giving one vote for every dollar you pay in tax, be that corporate or otherwise would make for a good government (I’d love to see the results though) but that depends what you define as good I suppose. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_three-class_franchise 🙂 I don’t recall property ownership giving you the right to vote being looked back on as good system either. Also people with no ‘skin in the game’ with serious heath problems deserve some representation in my view.

    I would have agreed to the refugee policy if I’d been asked I think it’s important to take refugees especially from repressive regimes, but that’s just my opinion. I’m not familiar with Gramsci I will read up on him when I get a chance.

    Like

  18. “if I’d been asked I think it’s important to take refugees especially from repressive regimes..”
    And that will fix the repression…how, exactly? All it does is have the effect of dragging us down, not them up.
    The answer to repressive regimes is for the oppressed to rise up, not for that country to export them. Taking their disaffected is aiding the regime.

    Like

  19. I see your point KG but if I’m not mistaken, isn’t one of the main qualifiers for ‘refugee status’ that if returned to their country of origin they would be killed or face being tortured etc? Can’t see how you could justify sending someone back to face that, especially if all they have done for example is be a member of the opposition or practice the wrong religion. I’m sure as with any system it get gamed all the time but I see some good in it and don’t mind my taxes going towards it. Sorry if that makes me a liberal pussy or something.

    Like

  20. I think this is one of those discussion that could go on all night, Smithy, and we would still find very little common ground.

    People with no skin in the game (who choose not to purchase medical insurance) should be treated by charity or teaching hospitals. Socialised health care reduces the level of care available for all to the lowest common denominator where, for example, the best cancer treatment drugs are unavailable in NZ because the centralised medicines buying agency will not provide funding. Exactly the same with socialised education (which is even worse, because it provides a vehicle for not just education, but indoctrination a la New Zealand’s public school system).

    And fair enough you may well have chosen to support taking refugees, but surely it would have been nice to have been given a choice about the type and number? And surely there should be some checks and balances on those being brought in so (for example) parts of New Zealand do not end up as muslim enclaves as in London?

    I urge you to research Gramsci, but based on our conversation thus far I’m not sure his writings will have the impression on you they had on me.

    Like

  21. I was talking about representation not health care. This > “…allowing people with no “skin in the game” to vote.”

    When you say the “best cancer treatment drugs are unavailable in NZ” do you mean they are illegal to purchase in NZ or that they are just not state funded? Because if it’s the later (and I’m not missing something) then it seems like a bit of a contradiction blaming Socialised health care when you can still pay for private care if you wish.

    Like

  22. I think it was you who introduced health care when you said “Also people with no ‘skin in the game’ with serious heath problems deserve some representation in my view.” I may have misunderstood your comment. You may have meant that those with serious health problems ought to have a vote. I don’t disagree with that, althought it does go to the question of how one funds health. Either through a centralised, socialised system (where those with severe health problems rely on the government thieving money from the productive to pay for their care) or through private insurance providers (with pre-paid premiums offering some surety of care). I know which I prefer.

    And I mean those drugs tend to not be sold in NZ, because the pharmac system distorting the market (picking winners, making some drugs ridiculously cheap) makes them prohibitively expensive.

    There is no contradiction. Government distorts any market in which it meddles. Whether that be bailing out failing finance companies, or R&D grants for some over others, or providing social programs and care (locking the private sector out of providing service, or severely limiting their involvement). Welfare, for example, ought rightly to be provided not by government but by churches and charities. Education ought to be provided by private providers, so parents can choose what their children are taught rather than having a centralised curriculum which advocates a revised version of history, several pseudo-religious sciences and a severe leftwards tilt.

    Like

  23. “You may have meant that those with serious health problems ought to have a vote”
    I did.

    Maybe both, if you want public care you sign up for that and pay a levy and if not you go private. You’d have to make it compulsory to chose one though. You’d soon discover if the public system gave you good value. Unfortunately some people just can’t pay for either so what happens to them? (This isn’t meant to be a smarmy comment, I just mean you can’t have people with infectious diseases running around because they have no health care.)

    Sorry for taking this so off topic MrBaiter 🙂 thanks for the chat TGG.

    Like

  24. “Unfortunately some people just can’t pay for either so what happens to them?”

    That’s where charity and/or teaching hospitals come in.

    Yeah, sorry for going off on a tangent, Red, but (I feel anyway) it’s been a good discussion.

    Like

  25. RB , You sould continue this subject on another post , and the commentators have been very logical and thoughtfull in their responses , very educational .

    Like

Comments are closed.