For one thing I’m baffled as to why anyone who might profess themselves to be of a right wing political persuasion would want to belong to the National Party anyway. The Nats do nothing that could be considered remotely right wing.
If you are a right winger, the only reason you’d join the Nats would be to try and bring them back to the basic ideas they were founded on.
I see little evidence of this intent in the political faction calling themselves the “Young Nationals”. More the opposite. They seem driven by the same Cultural Marxist ideas as the Labour Party, just taking a slightly softer approach that is in reality only the same old gradualisation that has typified the National Party’s slide to the left for decades.
A recent opinion piece written by the young Nats Vice President garnered some public notice, and although I commend Katy Hendrikse on not siding with the far left whitebait on the idea of gender quotas, her argument is littered with references that indicate her subjugation to left wing thinking patterns, those patterns that continue taking the Nats and the country far left.
If one was really going to make an argument about gender quotas, and one fully understood why they exist, one cannot make that argument accurately forcefully and truthfully without any mention of Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is the main force driving the left and has been since the 1950s. Pushed by left wing academics in our universities its led to a vast number of graduates obsessed with criticising Western Society rather than seeing it for the what it truly is, (or was anyway) a magnificent development by humankind and one of the most productive free and open societies that has ever existed on the planet.
The left have picked Western society to death now ever since the Frankfurt school of the fifties. They will tell you again and again how much is wrong and simultaneously distract you from recognising what is good. The so called “gender gap” is one of thousands of ideas that have their roots in Critical Theory.
All of these ideas exist to try and create the impression that in order to be a decent and good society, we must change. Nothing is said about our achievements, what is good, there’s rather just a relentless drumbeat of criticism. One of these criticisms, to take the current example, is that women are treated in a grossly unfair manner.
Of course there are a thousand counter arguments that prove this is an untrue claim, but they don’t matter to the left anyway. One of the big advantages of Critical Theory is that is any criticism doesn’t at all need to be grounded in truth. True or not, as long as criticism adds to the general overall impression that Western Society is deeply flawed in many ways, it has fulfilled its purpose.
If one wants to point out the illogic of Critical Theory one can do so easily, and that is what Katy should have focused on. If you’re going to criticise Western Society on some point it is only logical to compare it with others. Let’s take as a random example, Muslim society. If we’re going to put Western Society in the dock over gender inequality, then where is the criticism of Muslim society?
Rather than being free to make this comparison, it is forbidden by our cultural watch tower guards. Worse, we are told that we must embrace Muslim society because it enhances our own society by making it diverse and vibrant. How does that work?
This question remains unanswered by the left. A fact that makes it clear that Critical Theory exists and is being used to weaken, divide, break down and destroy Western Society so that Western leftists can rebuild it according to their Utopian socialist/ communist blueprint.
The Young Nats can answer the left’s constant manipulative criticism of our society as they wish of course, but unless they understand where that criticism is coming from, they’re not going to do any good. The left will not be beaten back unless the strategies they use are recognised and fought with effective counter strategies. For decades now the Nats have failed in this regard. I don’t see much reason to think the Young Nats, when they eventually assume power within the party, are going to change this pattern of failure. They’ll just keep on reacting, when they should be proactive.
Further reading I recommend- An Introduction To Cultural Marxism, by Nick Short.
TrueblueNZ 
5 responses to “Young Nationals more useless than the old Nationals?”
David, the atheist, the liberal, the arrogant fool. It is well worth keeping your comment here, as your arguments show how emotional and ideologically driven you people are. The bright future, of your Utopian world, is built on a total disregard of the past and a very sheltered view of human nature. Go away. Go and get some life experience. Go help out in a migrant camp in Europe.. Walk the talk, puller.
LikeLike
Save it. You’re not here for debate or open to reason. Get out of your ivory tower and go visit a prison or a war memorial, for some male privilege. How about embracing a few Muslims, don’t forget to mention that you despise their religious dogma..
LikeLike
Caleb- You know what really pisses me off with these Communist jerks is their insistence that we watch FOX News and get our ideas there and that its a right wing propaganda outlet blah blah blah.
They’re too damned insular and blinkered themselves to know that so many of us regard FOX as just another bunch of Liberals, and I haven’t watched them in ages apart from when Trump was on.
Yet David and his comrades don’t know this, and then THEY tell US we should get out of our basements…!!
FFS, they’re so out of touch and delusional its almost impossible to believe they’re not completely insane.
LikeLike
Red, this “David” character is the very creep who gloated about the death of Cameron Slater’s mother on the WhaleOil blog whilst pretending to be D4J. He was BillyBorker, MyNameIsJack and LukeMutton at Kiwiblog before Farrar outed him and kicked him to touch. It now appears he has crawled back out from under his rock.
He is a tragic Christianity obsessed nutcase.
Fuck off outta here David, you fat gutted, ugly, pointy nosed old cunt !!
LikeLike
About the gender pay gap, I had this to say on kiwiblog (blazeoflight was arguing for gender pay, and used the movies as an example:
Blazeoflight, I’m not sure that you completely understand how a labour market works. In the case of actors and actresses, it is a contract market. To use an illustration. When I was temping for Martin Personnel, the amount of money I would earn would be based on the amount of assignments I took and how many hours those assignments would be. If I did two assignments that went for 8 hours each, I would get paid for 16 hours, if the next week I did 32 hours worth I would get paid for 32 hours.
We all received approximately the same rate per hour, the difference was based on how many hours work we did. Its the same with actors and actresses. The 90s popular show Melrose Place had at one point 32 episodes a season which was the absolute maximium the producers could undertake, while most other shows were only 22 episodes long. So if people are getting the same pay rate, if your working as an actor on Melrose Place at the same pay rate as Beverley Hills your going to get more money, but are going to be pushed harder. So those who are only involved in the show Beverley Hills, have got time to work in another movie if they so wish, to help make up for getting less than working for Melrose Place.
And if Melrose Place was more popular than other shows, that means the advertisers would be willing to pay more, as more people are watching. If 200 million Americans are watching Melrose Place, and 150 million Americans are watching Beverley Hills 90210, the Melrose Place producers can demand more money from the advertisers than they can from Beverley Hills, which is what final customer means. The final customer is the amount of people who watch. And the amount of people who watch will determine what the advertisers will pay. Which brings up the other thing, the 1st season of melrose place had a very low rating, in the 2nd season it heated up. The producers knew it would eventually heat up, but in the meantime they had to put up with getting little. So your pay as an actor or actress is based not only on how the show or movie is doing, but how it is expected to do.
If from the beginning you signed a 5 year contract when it wasn’t doing so well, it then all of a sudden picked up, you are locked in that 5 year contract. Meanwhile the others are going to sign that contract, when it has been heated up, and can get more money than you.
So when people understand how a labour market works, than they can understand what statistics actually are relevant. One final point. Someone from the Philippines was earning minimium wage for cabinet making, they now make $24 an hour. When they came into the country $13.25 which was the minimium wage sounded good to them. When they had Work Visa issues, they couldn’t work out why the employer would say they did general work, and not cabinet making. I explained to them that’s because they don’t want the government to know your working for minimium wage, for cabinet making. So a friend helped them out and that’s why they are working for $24 an hour. If you want a fair pay, you need to be willing to move around, and negotiate a fair deal. And the fact that you don’t know just how well a movie will do, makes things very difficult.
__________________________________________________________________________________
So from this we see that those who are arguing for gender pay don’t understand how a labour market works. To argue for gender pay is asking for the government to own the movie industry and pay people the same regardless of hours, a very scary thought.
LikeLike