It is alleged by many National Party supporters that there is a psychiatric disorder at large among the political left of NZ, and they call it Key Derangement Syndrome. Well, taken in the context it is meant to be, this could be true, and my problem with it is that it helps to shield Key from real criticism.
Look at most mainstream stories critical of Key and you’ll find they’re almost all sourced from the far left, and repeated by far left political agitators posing as journalists. Occasionally, there’s an article that strays from this pattern, but not often. Consequently, with so many cries of wolf, when a real issue comes along it fails to gain any traction.
Last week I read an allegation that John Key had met with Chinese in NZ (who could only be recent immigrants) to seek their help in the further financial underwriting (on top of $26 million from the taxpayer) of his deceitful campaign attacking NZ’s traditional flag.
This horrified me, and I expected there would be more to come on the story. The silence has been deafening. A circumstance I find incredible.
Here is the Prime Minister of the country conspiring with unknown Chinese, in meetings kept secret from the public, to remove the Union Jack from our flag. For myself, I struggle to see this as anything but an example of gross moral treason. Something that should at the very least have put the skids under Key for once and for all. Instead, hardly a ripple.
In fact the whole issue of Key’s undue friendliness with the People’s Republic of China, governed as it is by the People’s Liberation Army, A full on Communist institution, goes largely unremarked upon in the NZ media.
In Australia a couple of days aqo the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story on how Chinese residents in Australia held a rally to warn Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull on how to behave in dealings with the PRC.
The article, written by Fairfax’s China correspondent Philip Wen, said the rally was organised by the Chinese “Australian Action Committee for Peace and Justice”. It declared the need for the Australian government to “Firmly Safeguard the Sovereign Rights of China in the South China Sea”. It also said-
“Australia’s political elite should have a clear understanding,” the committee’s chair Lin Bin said at the Saturday meeting. “[They] ought to talk and act carefully on the sensitive issue on the South China Sea, and not make ‘irrational’ or incorrect signals to the international community.”
The rhetoric of freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, international arbitration, changing the status quo and “militarisation” of the South China Sea, it said, were all mere buzzwords utilised by the United States as part of its strategic pivot back to the Asia-Pacific – “naked hegemonic behaviour” aimed at containing China’s rise.
What were previously fringe nationalistic and patriotic Chinese associations in Australia are now emboldened in the search for greater domestic political influence with the implicit backing of a rising China and its increasingly assertive foreign policy.
Mr. Feng Chongyi, an associate professor of Chinese Studies at UTS, said “I can see in Australia, in the United States, even Europe, very strong lobby groups who work very closely with the Chinese government. If you follow those analyses that some of those overseas Chinese students come from very rich backgrounds, Communist Party officials and business people, they are naturally linked between them and the regime back home,” Dr Feng says.
In another article, Peter Jennings, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and leader of the expert panel advising the Government on its recent Defence White Paper, said national security interests also needed to be assessed when doing deals with Chinese. (from PRC).
“The problem is the nature of Chinese business, because of its close associations with the Communist Party,” he told 7.30.
“Chinese companies are nowhere near as transparent, and do not, when they go overseas, disclose the role of the party in terms of a company’s decision making, and do not describe … how that can then link back into the Chinese intelligence establishment.”
“Given the volume of Chinese investment which is potentially coming into Australia now, Australian governments can’t just look at the money, they’ve got to actually understand what the strategic implications are of having so much Chinese investment in Australia, when those businesses can be tied so closely to the Communist Party.“
So Australian journalists are doing the legwork on this issue, reporting on real concerns, while NZ journalist are as usual naval gazing or ineffectively trying to slag Key on some pissant issue of no consequence.
There is no question that a similar Communist Chinese political presence would exist in NZ but we hear nothing on the issue from the largely pathetic bunch of incompetents described as NZ’s MSM.
Who were the mysterious Chinese Key met with who wanted the Union Jack removed from our flag? There was an amazingly telling quote from Lewis Holden (tacit leader of the attack on our traditional flag, along with John Key and David Farrar) when he reportedly said the donors at the meeting were “people who were keen on supporting us in the flag campaign. We put it together on the basis we get donations from them for the campaign.”
There you have it readers. The flag change committee, and the Prime Minister, conspiring with recent immigrants from the TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP called the People’s Republic of China, to remove the Union Jack, a symbol of our cultural and social heritage, a heritage that gave us our democratic parliamentary system, our system of justice, our language and customs, from the NZ flag.
Traitorous scum. Deceitful devious contemptible cowardly traitorous scum.
Furthermore, Mr Holden seems to be saying here that the whole flag campaign was a result of Chinese influence and their promise to fund the campaign.
Did he mean to say that? Did he let the cat out of the bag on the real reason for the campaign?
I often wondered why and where the idea to attack out traditional flag came from. It seemed to come out of the blue, and I thought often, “Why did Key do this when he did not have to?” I have previously put it down to vanity. Now I suspect something else.
If we take Mr. Holden’s statement at face value, it would at least imply that the whole idea was a result of Chinese political and financial influence upon John Key and the National Party. PRC immigrants wanted the Union Jack removed from our flag and the campaign only kicked off because of this objective and their financial support. Bizarre perhaps, but it fits as a logical solution.
Mr Holden admits that the money the Chinese donated allowed his campaign group to send pro-change pamphlets to 500,000 NZ homes. “We knew there was support in the Chinese community because of the Union Jack,” Mr Holden said.
So who were the donors, and did they come from a group in any way similar to the pro-CPC Australian Group? John Key would not be interviewed on the issue and neither would other National Party reps at the meeting, Peter Goodfellow and Nikki Kaye. So there the matter rests, because apparently there’s little curiosity about it among the NZ media or public.
I didn’t hear a squeak from the Labour Party. Here was an opportunity to hit Key with something hard and something real for once and they did nothing. I also heard SFA from Winston Peters. One would have thought this would be just his kind of issue.
Of course there was nothing either on the National Party blogs Whaleoil or Keywiblog. Pretty much a media blackout apart from one follow up post on the Herald article on The Standard blog.
My feeling is there is a lot more to this than has been revealed so far. I’m going to try and follow through and get to the truth of the matter. Watch this space for updates.
Oh, and in the slim chance you might read this Mr. Key, have a good trip to China tomorrow to engage with all of those thugs cronyists and criminals of the Chinese Communist Party who hold their people at the point of a gun. And who also apparently own you and the New Zealand National Party.