The Dim-Post

July 29, 2014

Whyte supremacy

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 1:58 pm

Emphatically, he says, an ACT party led by Whyte would not go to war on Treaty issues. “I’ve got no interest in Maori-bashing as a political game.”

Dr Jamie Whyte back in January when he assumed leadership of ACT. 

The ACT Party is playing the race card arguing Maori are legally privileged in this country. Party Leader Jamie Whyte has made the call in a speech in Waikato today saying Maori are legally privileged in New Zealand today just as the aristocracy was in pre-revolutionary France. He says many Maori are better off, better educated and in better health than many Pakeha and these are often the Maori who take the most advantage of their legal privileges.

However official statistics show Maori are worse off in health, education, life expectancy, and have higher rates of incarceration than Pakeha.

Whyte today, via NewstalkZB

32 Comments »

  1. “many Maori are better off, better educated and in better health than many Pakeha” Well, yes. There is inequality both within and between Maori and Pakeha populations. The existence of one equality does not exclude the other, or make it not worth addressing. I thought this bloke was supposed to be some kind of logician?

    Comment by Dr Foster — July 29, 2014 @ 2:26 pm

  2. Sure, just like pre-revolutionary France. I guess when your party is consistently polling below the margin of error then the following cards start to look awfully tempting: Race Card. Revised-Reality Card. I-Don’t-Know-Why-It-Didn’t-Work-For-Don-Brash-Last-Time-But-Maybe-I’ll-Get-Lucky-This-Time Card.

    Comment by mikaerecurtis — July 29, 2014 @ 2:32 pm

  3. Whyte supremacy

    I bet you’ve been itching to use that for a while now.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 29, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

  4. Let them eat kakahi

    Comment by Adrian — July 29, 2014 @ 3:00 pm

  5. Anyone who thinks Maori have it good does not know the first thing about New Zealand.

    Get back on the cabbage boat.

    Comment by George — July 29, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

  6. To be fair though, Jamie Whyte is someone who consistently inhabits another reality. In his book he says it’s absolutely fine to kill children for entertainment, if enough people enjoy it.

    Comment by George — July 29, 2014 @ 3:12 pm

  7. I bet David Cunliffe is mighty pleased ACT isn’t his coalition partner. Imagine the hard time he’d be getting! Paddy Gower would be chasing him down the corridor demanding to know if he supported eating babies!

    As it is, Paddy and John Armstrong are busy preparing to condemn babies for being so tasty, and adoringly ask the PM how he prepares them for the oven.

    Comment by Sanctuary — July 29, 2014 @ 3:44 pm

  8. Oh come on, everyone knows that advocating killing babies is perfectly normal for people entering Parliament, but wearing a scarf in the colour of your party is ccccrrrraaaazzzy.

    Comment by George — July 29, 2014 @ 4:03 pm

  9. the jamie whyte show just gets better and better

    last night i heard him trying to claim that support for acts policies (read: slogans) across NZ was actually 10% – shame the reporter didnt ask why they cant even get 1% of late

    “Whyte supremacy” – heh

    Comment by framu — July 29, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

  10. I-Don’t-Know-Why-It-Didn’t-Work-For-Don-Brash-Last-Time-But-Maybe-I’ll-Get-Lucky-This-Time Card

    Actually it did work very well for Don Brash. It’s his Orewa speech that brought National back from the abyss.

    It was more his bumbling of other issues in the end, that prevented him from making it to the end.

    Comment by eszett — July 29, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

  11. But enough about the glaring inaccuracies of Whyte’s views about Māori injustice and privilege let’s cut to the heart of the matter and get stuck into ‘baby-eaters’, have a tilt at media-bias and spare a thought for the victimisation of scarf-wearers everywhere. So much injustice – so little time…

    Comment by LeeC — July 29, 2014 @ 5:59 pm

  12. Ironic for Whyte to play the French Revolution card, given that his party is based around a political philosophy that arose as a negation of the French Revolution.

    Also ironic that Danyl is doing to Whyte what he hates having done to him – pointing out the inconsistencies between a current statement and an earlier statement.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 29, 2014 @ 7:37 pm

  13. Actually it did work very well for Don Brash. It’s his Orewa speech that brought National back from the abyss.
    Brash played the race card as leader of ACT in the 2011 election campaign, thinking he could capitalise like he did back in Orewa in 2005. Turns out the electorate has been inoculated against that particular racist propaganda – which is why it won’t work for Mr Whyte. ACT is a macabre, vile, reality-challenged freakshow. They’ve got nothing to add except naked desperation.

    BTW, does anybody know what the (I assume Chinese) text means on their billboards ? Given their form, it could be something totally bizarre…

    Comment by mikaerecurtis — July 29, 2014 @ 8:04 pm

  14. “ACT is a macabre, vile, reality-challenged freakshow. They’ve got nothing to add except naked desperation.” With you all the way there, Mikaere, but I would also put the Conservatives, Greens, NZ First and Internet Mana in the same category. Internet Mana and ACT have, to me, slight redeeming features – Hone’s perverse staunchness and ACT’s little seen libertarianism but I struggle to find any bit of the Greens or NZ First attractive with the former representing the fearful, authoritarian and muddle headed young and middle aged and the latter the fearful, authoritarian and muddle-headed elderly.

    Comment by Tinakori — July 29, 2014 @ 11:38 pm

  15. Yeah, Tinakori.

    What happened to them good old days, when we just had a sensible choice between a slightly red or a bit blue options?

    Comment by Flashing Light — July 30, 2014 @ 7:09 am

  16. Tinakori. If the Greens are so authoritarian, how come they make their decisions via consensus ?

    Comment by mikaerecurtis — July 30, 2014 @ 7:32 am

  17. If the Green’s are authoritarian, how come they have 2 spokespeople (generally male and female) for each role, potentially bringing different viewpoints? How come they’re the most representative of NZ parties? How come they’re open to being corrected (e.g. the whole quantitative easing thing)?

    They’re authoritative in the sense that they generally** have evidence based policy – certainly more evidence based policy than most of the other parties. That evidence comes from the authority of scientific knowledge.

    ** Not with every single little thing, but they at least seem to be open to debate, rather than being completely dismissive, which is the only response I’ve ever had from Joyce or Brownlee for example.

    Comment by lefty — July 30, 2014 @ 8:03 am

  18. “How come they’re open to being corrected (e.g. the whole quantitative easing thing)?”

    They never really conceded that critics of quantitative easing were correct, or that the policy was wrong, they just removed it from their manifesto for unspecified reasons. And, to take another example, they refused to modify their stance on fracking despite the fact that the inquiry that they called for on fracking returned a not-entirely-negative verdict on the practice. If we view the Greens’ change of course on quantitative easing as worthy and admirable, it doesn’t set them apart – it’s not like other political parties don’t also change their policies.

    But even then, it’s possible to be representative and authoritarian, or to change one’s mind and be authoritarian. I don’t actually think the Greens are notably authoritarian – they have their moments, but not necessarily moreso than any other political party. But I don’t think they are more open minded about the possibility that they’re wrong than any other party.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 30, 2014 @ 8:38 am

  19. Tinakori thinks the Greens are authoritarian because they might make him do something he doesn’t want to do – like help save the environment.

    Comment by Sanctuary — July 30, 2014 @ 8:46 am

  20. It appears that Jamie is now running around attacking journalists for asking him questions about Maori and privilege. This will end badly.

    Comment by George — July 30, 2014 @ 9:35 am

  21. Claiming the Greens are more authoritarian than National is just daft.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 30, 2014 @ 9:36 am

  22. When I heard that Colin Craig wasn’t sure about the moon landing and believed in chem trails I thought he sounded like a Green who had decided to form a christian-based splinter group. Wasn’t Jeanette Fitzsimons a 9/11 conspiracist? Sanctuary, I think the Greens are authoritarian because their policies are premised on a vast increase in state power and an amusingly bizarre belief that public servants can make us rich, a lot like Winston really but with different clothes sense. While I have worked with many super smart public servants even the naturally arrogant would find that proposition funny. And frankly I find two spokespeople and rigid gender balances more Orwellian than reassuring. And gender and ethnic balances may be a necessary condition for representativeness but they are surely not sufficient, especially given the rigidity and intolerance of the Greens political views. In that sense they have more in common with the Tea Party than the more tolerant part of the political spectrum I favour. Making decisions by consensus doesn’t make authoritarian policies any less so. ISIS, I suspect makes decisions based on consensus but I am pretty sure none of us would want to spend a lot of time in ISIS controlled territory at the moment.

    Comment by Tinakori — July 30, 2014 @ 9:38 am

  23. Tinakori, you seem to have run out of straw. Let me fetch you some.

    Comment by alex — July 30, 2014 @ 9:41 am

  24. And frankly I find two spokespeople and rigid gender balances more Orwellian than reassuring.

    Possibly the worst use of the descriptor “Orwellian” ever! From “War is Peace” and a boot smashing a human face forever, to membership chosen zip-lists in order to balance overall representation.

    Of course, we could just let “democracy” decide, and have 75%-25% male-to-female representation … ’cause that’s just how things have to be.

    Comment by Flashing Light — July 30, 2014 @ 9:59 am

  25. “… the former representing the fearful, authoritarian and muddle headed young and middle aged…”

    As it happens, I tend to agree that the Green party is a movement of the comfy middle class, and like the middle classes everywhere they tend to authoritarianism. But I don’t think that the way they organise their party is authoritarian, just the philosophy when you take it to it’s conclusion. Let’s be honest – the Greens have no real answers on the economy, but then that is why I will never vote for them. Personally, I think all the other parties could take a leaf from their book. I personally find the idea of having two leaders a ridiculous oxymoron, but I quite like the idea of two gender balanced co-leaders and a strong requirement political parties raise the percentage of women in electable positions rise to a point where the parliament at least has a passing resemblance to the society that elected it.

    Comment by Sanctuary — July 30, 2014 @ 11:41 am

  26. Many women are taller than many men.

    Men are taller than women.

    The latter statement is only true ‘on average’.

    It’s not rocket surgery mate

    Comment by Vanilla Thrilla (@Vanilla_Thrilla) — July 30, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

  27. Possibly the worst use of the descriptor “Orwellian” ever!

    “Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase – some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse – into the dustbin where it belongs.

    George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946

    Comment by Joe W — July 30, 2014 @ 10:10 pm

  28. This was kind of my point about bandying the term ‘rape culture’ about. ‘Moari privilege’ being another, it’s little more than -ahem -‘dog – whistling’.

    Comment by Lee Clark — July 31, 2014 @ 4:05 am

  29. Except one describes a true state of affairs in the world, the other doesn’t.

    Apart from that, though, they are exactly the same.

    Comment by Flashing Light — July 31, 2014 @ 7:38 am

  30. “…‘Moari privilege’ being another…”

    What is a Moari? Is it place one might find a Moa, like a brewery is a place for beer or a bakery is a place for bread?

    Comment by Sanctuary — July 31, 2014 @ 9:18 am

  31. Apologies in my haste, I spelled it wrongly of course it should have been Māori.
    I may have mispelled ‘rap-culture’ too, but don’t quote me on that.

    Comment by LeeC — July 31, 2014 @ 10:36 am

  32. I have/we have the privilege of walking on the beach for free. It is a privilege codified in the most recent example race based law of the sort Jamie Whyte claims is abhorrent. Strangely however Jamie Whyte doesn’t seem to mention this privilege at all.

    Comment by unaha-closp — August 1, 2014 @ 9:51 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: