New Zealand Nanny State And The Virtue Signalling Establishment

The New Zealand nanny state has existed for a long time before the current crisis but has shown itself in all its Marxist glory in the current crisis. Based on normal human psychology taken to the national scale. If you treat a child like the hero in embryo; a man to be, treat him with respect and intelligence and expect him to respond in kind, then he is more likely to grow up to be just such a man. But if you treat him like a child, never expecting or encouraging growth or character, always acquiescing to childish demands and encouraging childlike dependence. Then that child and the nation so treated will respond in kind, with naivety, gullibility, and dependence.

The emotional intelligence
of contemporary New Zealand.

It's like living in Teletubby land! The attitude is expressed in the delivery of the TV News every night and continued in the current affairs programs Seven Sharp and The Project.  Everybody is happy and the government is lovely and were all having a wonderful time knowing that mummy is taking care of us.

We now have a situation where the Ardern government believes it is within its purview to direct the population on what emotions to experience and when to experience them. Hate, of course, is not an emotion that White people are allowed to experience, a fact soon to be enforceable by Law. And in this time of coronavirus hysteria, we are instructed to be kind, and told when to Love.

We now have huge cut-outs of the word "Love" stationed at key intersections in our town, so that anyone entering the village knows exactly what is required of them on an emotional level when the arrive. It is kind of curious and a little embarrassing that this sort of soppy emotionalism should take pride of place at the busiest intersections in our village. But this is the ethos of the age certainly here in New Zealand. The Nanny state, the telly Tubby rendition of the New Zealand that we now inhabit.

Is this the result of the infantilization of the nation? The complete lack of emotional intelligence that is promoted and accepted as a moral good. To be week is good, to be non-threatening in any way is good. To not have any objection to anything that seeks to encroach on your liberties or usurp what a lesser person might consider their own exclusive domain, this is a moral good.

After the Christchurch mosque attacks our Marxist PM Ardern donned a hijab and with a gaunt forced look of sadness, grief and sympathy on her face declared that this easily identified group of foreigners were “us”. “They are us” we were told. This could only be a moral consideration, with a strong hint of bribery. If these people actually were part of the Racial/cultural milieu that comprises the New Zealand tradition then there would be no “they” to identify. However, the bribery worked and many otherwise intelligent New Zealanders went along with the governments typically Marxian attempt to dilute the cultural identity of New Zealand.

The left has a continuing and overriding obsession with virtue signaling. Moral posturing is sacrosanct and far more important than practical details like housing, the economy or social cohesion. It's a tactic, no less a political tactic than open warfare, and the target is the domestic population. That is why the hijab-wearing Adern is not concerned about how her validation of Islam is perceived by another oppressed group, Muslim women, not just in the middle east and Africa but now all over the European homelands as well. Millions of Muslim women in these countries suffer forced child marriage, endemic sex, and physical abuse as well as the grotesque barbarity of Female Genital Mutilation. The efforts of Muslims in the west to highlight these issues and do something about it are seriously undermined when a western Prime Minister openly welcomes and accepts this barbaric religion into the western tradition.

Perhaps I'm just old, but I have noticed that in days gone by this institutional virtue signaling and these legislative forays into the emotions of the people did not occur. No one ever even considered that these things were any business of the government. If they had considered it at all they would have been seen as ridiculous, unnecessary and none of their damned business!

In a viable and natural homogeneous community directives of this sort are not only not required, but would be taken as an insult if they were given.

If Churchill had gone into the East end after the blitz of 1940 and told the devastated locals to be kind and to love one another, how would that have been received? It would have been seen as condescending and empty rhetoric. “Of course we are going to be kind to each other!” They were a tight-knit, long-standing ethnically homogeneous population.

The implication behind this sort of rhetoric is like a parent telling a 7-year-old son to love his sister, the implication being that his behavior indicates that he does not. It's a telling off and he knows it.

So why do they do it? Is it because if they did not, society would descend into anarchy, infighting, and tribalism? Is it because the people are so neutered that they genuinely don't know what to think or feel next?

I can't help thinking that as society becomes ever more fractured and individualized then these attempts to keep the lid on things in times of crisis will only increase. I mentioned Marxists earlier on, Our PM Jacinda Ardern was president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, the motto of which is “All over the world to change it”, what exactly are you going to change Jacinda?

To the committed communist, ideas are everything, they are consumed by an astonishing hubris that makes any change or modification, reversal or redirection impossible. Only by war, revolution, or complete economic and state collapse will any change of direction be possible.

We may be surprised to learn just how quickly the motherly exhortation to “There there, they are us, love each other” can become the Stazi boot on your balls. And that is not not a metaphor.