NZ Conservative

With a lot of talk these days about “western values” tests for non-western immigrants, I thought I might offer a few brief pointers for understanding the confusing western politics called liberalism:

- western countries pollute the atmosphere bad, non-western countries pollute the atmosphere ok
- environmental degradation bad, increased immigration and population growth good
- roads bad, buses good
- consumption good, mining and manufacturing bad
- diversity of cultures good, diversity of political views bad
- ethnicity based statistics mentioned in right-wing news bad, ethnicity based stats mentioned in left-wing news good
- blacks voting for black presidential candidate not racist, whites voting for white presidential candidate racist.
- blacks and browns opposed to homosexuality good, whites opposed to homosexuality bad.
-Muslim sexism good, Christian sexism bad
- objectifying women bad, pornography good
- women doing arts degrees good, women getting paid less bad
- more people at university good, rising tuition costs and populist courses bad
- indigenous paternalism good, western paternalism bad
- white trash music (heavy metal/country) crap, black trash music (gansta rap) good
- East Asian immigration restrictionism ok, Western immigration restrictionism bad
- white Eastern Europeans persecuting minorities bad, black Africans persecuting minorities not so bad.
- non-white ethno-centric parties ok, white ethno-centric parties=nazis
- nationalist holocaust evil, communist holocaust not so bad.
- painting your country’s flag on your face and shouting out its name, good, being concerned with your country’s long-term viability bad.
- IQ testing for criminals and learning disabled accurate, IQ testing for school students and job applicants not accurate
- anti-christian evolutionary ideas good, conservative evolutionary ideas bad
- people dependent on the state good, state imposing conditions on behaviour of welfare recipients bad
- meritocracy good, tough academic standards bad.

With the demise of New Zealand First, and National’s strong showing in the recent election there appears to be a strong likelihood that immigration is set to increase.

As in 1990, National has got into government with a strong majority during a recessionary period and is keeping conspicuously quiet on immigration matters.

Last time around National’s solution to solving the economic downturn was to increase East Asian immigration to stimulate the housing market and attract foreign capital. The economy turned around, but the majority failed to benefit as a yawning gap opened up between wages and house prices.

It’s now six years since New Zealand First’s strong showing in the 2002 election send a message to the government that the majority of the population wasn’t happy with wealth-based, non-western immigration, and there are a number of signs that National is considering opening the immigration floodgates once again.

Firstly it’s junior coalition partner Act has a strongly pro-immigration platform – it wants a net immigration inflow of 30,000 -40,000 per year, and it doesn’t appear to be very fussy about where they come from (this is pretty high when you consider the country’s high level of out-migration to Australia).

Then there’s National’s unnecessary decision to broker a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party. On the surface it might seem strange that National is willing to make a deal with an ethno-centric party whose co-leader has stated she’s opposed to white immigration, on the grounds that it’s undermining the “browning” of New Zealand (particularly since National voters are overwhelming right liberal whites who are strongly opposed to ethnocentric policies).

However, if the Maori Party is not particularly opposed to non-white immigration, as co-leader Turiana Turia appears to suggest, then there’s no reason why it can’t work with National on immigration. All National has to do is to restrict white immigration and let in more Polynesians and Asians.

There is also National’s plan to loosen up zoning restrictions and cut back the Resource Management Act. If National does intend to increase immigration then its essential that it make more land available for development so that there isn’t another sharp increase in house prices as there was in the 1990s.

The demise of New Zealand First means there’s no party in parliament with a immigration restrictionist policy to express opposition, since both Labour and the Greens support high immigration levels, and in the case of the Green’s, increased refugee quotas.

Hopefully I’m wrong on immigration, but with the election of pro-immigration candidates like Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama in Australia and the U.S it appears New Zealand could be heading down the same path.