Hegseth Calls Out New Zealand

Well, it's been a long wait, but finally the US is calling out New Zealand for its lack of defence spending. Currently, New Zealand cannot even secure its own air space and it has naval vessels tied up because it has no crew for the ships. And even if crew existed, it's doubtful NZ could even find the money to pay them, within existing budgets. 

I've often written about this parlous state of affairs. I have tracked the decline in NZ defence spending to the start of NZ's MMP method of choosing political leaders (MMP = Mixed Member Proportional). From that date, 1996, defence spending started to fall off a cliff. The reason for this is easily explained; to form a government, the various parties contesting elections must form coalitions and make deals. Defence is always the unwanted cousin, and so is quickly traded away. Thus, now NZ's military barely exists. 

The current NZ government plans may as well be filed under, believe it when you see it. They're all talk, making endless announcements of announcements, going to do this, intending to do that, conducting consultations, examinations, it is most unseemly. 

However, the only issue I have is with the way the US is going about this; it won't have the desired effect. Usually, NZ is spoken to behind the scenes, quietly. With the approach the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, is taking, don't expect NZ to spend more on American equipment.

Lignite to Diesel - NZ's Shelved Project

New Zealand should start making lignite to diesel and urea (fertilizer). The feasibility studies have been done, and the resource exists in limitless quantities. 

The following report is available on a NZ government department website. Make it happen NZ.

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/8fb7b2c240/liquid-fuels-from-lignite.pdf

Internationally, the demand for crude oil is increasing, at a time when many experts are predicting that the peak in oil production will occur sometime over the next 20 years. This combined with concerns about the security of oil supply, particularly with the current political instability in several oil producing regions, means that the price of oil has the potential to rise to unprecedented levels over the next two decades. New Zealand depends on imported oil for 99% [MED 2006] of its transportation fuels. If the cost of crude oil rises as predicted and the possibility of serious supply interruptions becomes more pressing, then alternatives need to be sought now to avoid serious transportation fuel shortages in the future. 

New Zealand Farmers Polled

The New Zealand Fieldays are underway at the moment. Fieldays is an agricultural and primary industry expo, and the largest such event in the Southern Hemisphere. It's not just about tractors and harvesters, it's also about farming technology and these days laser weeders and drone sprayers are the thing. 

The largest farmer lobby group conducted a poll at the show and these were the results:

National 54%

ACT 19%

NZ First 8%

Labour 3%

Greens 2%

Te Pati Maori 1%

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/the-country/audio/chris-luxon-prime-minister-speaks-from-fieldays-2025/

I always remind people that farmers in New Zealand consider Labour and the Greens their mortal enemy. Here is the result then, study it. When people say the 2020 election result was not rigged, I laugh at them. There is no place in provincial NZ where Labour could ever win, but in 2020 we are expected to believe they cleaned up right across the country, in every single provincial seat. Yeah, right, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn NY for sale, super cheap.

Argentina Mess

The story of Argentina and how it slid from developed to developing is a sobering lesson in how to go from wealth to poverty. The US needs to pay attention, and New Zealand too for that matter: if you skip to the end, you'll find that where economic and political systems are controlled by powerful and exclusive elites, no matter what model is used - protectionist or free trade - failure will follow. Countries must have political and economic systems which allow a changing of the guard, people with new ideas and methods, leading to a redistribution of wealth.

New Zealand's Healthcare Recruitment Dilemma

New Zealand likes to recruit nurses and doctors in the UK. The numbers applying to emigrate have dropped off, and the below image explains why. NZ has a requirement for the workers to be fully jabbed. But, as you can see, 60-70% of nurses and doctors in the UK are NOT fully jabbed.

The Woke Supremacy

New Zealand blogger, Chris Trotter nails it with his piece on what is going on right now and how things will pan out. He's left-wing and finds it hard to put a name to the ideology the ruling class has embraced. I can solve this for you Mr Trotter; it is called Fascism. 

Read what he has to say here: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2021/02/04/the-woke-supremacy/

National Party Up Against It

Found this interesting blog post from experienced journalist, Karl Du Fresne about the bias New Zealand's National Party faces from the media:

http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2020/10/its-not-just-labour-party-that-collins.html

NZ Army: New Protected Mobility Vehicle

New Zealand are buying the Australian built Bushmaster for its army.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/122067489/new-armoured-vehicle-purchase-replaces-ageing-fleet

This is fine, but readers will be aware this is a drop in the bucket of what NZ needs to be spending. It continues to underinvest on defence and this won't be reversed soon. Too little too late?

Bob Jones on COVID-19 - MUST READ

https://nopunchespulled.com/2020/04/13/the-coming-economic-crisis-and-its-political-consequences/

COVID-19 Hysteria

I take issue with the way the COVID-19 numbers are being presented. To begin with only raw numbers are being used. Why? Take the USA, they have 504,000 cases out of a population of 328 million. That's 0.154% of the US population. To put this in perspective, that's equivalent to a bad flu season. Does the reader think it is rational to throw away an economy over something as bad as the flu or a little worse?

Now there isn't resistance to COVID-19 yet, that will take time, so higher mortality amongst those who catch it is to be expected. Currently that sits around 4%. That's not healthy, but I ask again, does it make sense to throw the economy away over this number of deaths.

This sounds heartless, but really isn't. We are talking life vs life here. If the economy is thrown away, which appears what many want to do, several things happen. The first is unemployment and increasing homelessness. This will lead to early death through diminished circumstances and suicide. Add to that the children of families who fall on hard times, their futures are compromised, and they die early deaths. I suspect the numbers adversely affected by an all-encompassing lockdown will be far worse than the adverse effects of keeping business functioning while the virus runs through the country. Yes, observe health guidelines but note, Japan has not locked down the whole country. Only Tokyo and six other prefectures have been locked down. What does a lockdown in Japan mean? People still go to work and restaurants remain open, but have to close by 8pm. Meanwhile areas like Aichi prefecture where Toyota is based have no lockdown at all.

Got the idea China was locked down? The media were all over it weren't they. But that, like Japan, was only certain areas, they remained ready for business throughout.

New Zealand has been touted as a positive example. They're not, they're incredibly stupid. Yes, they can stamp out the virus for now but then what? 20% of their export income relies on tourism. What are they going to do, ban all 7.5 billion people on planet earth from visiting. Or perhaps require all visitors to be isolated for 14 days? The effect of that would be to end Queenstown, Rotorua and the entire tourism industry. This would have a dire effect on indigenous Maori income as their tribes have invested heavily in tourism. NZ is no example to others, they'll be faced with either shutting away rather like North Korea or facing a second or third wave.

There is another problem with NZ's COVID-19 figures, they include probable cases. That's people who have been in contact with a COVID-19 positive, even if they have no symptoms or even been tested. NZ inflates their numbers this way. Why?

And finally, a word about that dishonest bunch of criminals the United Nations and the WHO. Why should we believe a word they have to say. Is this an attempt by the UN to limit population growth? Think about it, social distancing shutting down night life, sports, religious meetings and so on, is effectively limiting the ability of young people to meet one another. And there appears no end in sight to this policy of social distancing. It looks like population control by stealth and with few flights taking place, this has become our Greta Thunberg future. Have you woken up yet to what that world looks like? It's not a world I want to live in.

I agree with Donald Trump when it comes to the WHO, they were actively trying to spread the virus and are totally China focused. My advice, don't trust anyone not elected to office and that includes those scientists insisting the western industrialised world give up centuries of development over a simple virus.

Coronavirus and New Zealand

So far New Zealand has dodged the bullet. There have been a handful of COVID-19 cases but they seem to have been isolated early and there is no transmission of the virus within the wider community.

That said, calls are being made for NZ to do more, to shut down inbound flights, and for areas to be locked down with proven known cases. Reality check; NZ can't do that as it relies on air freight on passenger services to transport its pharmaceuticals, and without tourism the country would go bust fast. Districts can't be locked down either as NZ has no equivalent force to Italy's Carabinieri, its form of gendarmerie. NZ almost got there, once it had the Ministry of Transport road policing officers, a form of Polizia Di Stato, or civil lower level policing unit. The NZ police were placed over the top of that. But NZ cost-cut and merged the two, creating one large civil force and then underfunded it. NZ cannot now decide to be big bossy boots as it won't work, it is not possible to mobilise the gendarmerie as it completely lacks one. Thus, areas of the country cannot be isolated, the resources do not exist to do it.

And forget the army, those military bases are empty. NZ is so weak it can't pull the skin off a rice pudding. 

The answer is to hope and pray. Trust that people will behave and isolate when required to. Wash hands, cover sneezes and coughs etc. That's it, there ain't no more. Good luck Kiwiland.

[ Update@ 14/03/2020 - the NZ government has announced it is requiring all inbound travellers to self-isolate for 14 days. This is voluntary and cannot be rigidly policed (see above as to why not), I expect a bail out of Air New Zealand is on the horizon, it always gets the handouts, hotels and motels will not be so lucky]

[Update @ 09/06/2020 - after several weeks of the most all-encompassing lockdown in the world, NZ has emerged with a broken tourism sector, a national debt level that is at record highs, widespread unemployment, and a closed border. NZ did actually close that border but some flights still occur, possibly to ensure air freight continues. It's a huge mess, but the way NZ's dear leader spins it, she's saved the country from its imminent demise. If you put this in a novel no-one would believe it. Now NZ has no resistance to the virus, and must stay shut away, potentially for years. ]

ICC Cricket World Cup 2019: New Zealand

The New Zealand cricket team is proving itself to be very average. Its world ranking is far higher than it really deserves and now we can see why: the Kiwis have no fight in them.

They're poorly lead and play like a bunch of amateurs. The problem with NZ cricket goes deeper too; they're a team of upper middle class guys.  That's a recipe that'll never get the job done. To win you've got to have a bit of mongrel in there, look at the All Blacks for inspiration. For summer sports the men with that mongrel are out fishing or hunting, or they're in motor sport or baseball. They're not going to stand around all day saying inane things like ' great shot Whitherrington' or 'c'mon lads give them a bit of what-o.'

At the world cup in 2019 I've been following Afghanistan, they've got some fight in them which is a stark contrast to the chinless wonder Kiwis. One day Afghanistan may even win at the top level, won't that be a day to celebrate! But watching the NZers is like watching concrete set, boring and always a disappointment. For me Kane Williamson getting out against Australia said it all, when walking off having amassed a disappointing 40, he looked like he was taking his dog for a walk in the park, not like he was gutted he'd just let his team down.

MMP and the Failure of Smaller Political Parties

New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system has been around since 1996. It was meant to be fairer than its predecessor first-past-the-post system where a one vote majority means the winner takes the prize. It turns out nothing much changed, the two main parties, Labour and National have dominated since the Second World War and continued to do so under MMP.

It wasn't meant to be like that under MMP. New Zealanders were promised a plethora of parties vibrantly competing to secure the all-important party vote along with regional candidates contesting local issues for local people in local electorates. Everyone would get two votes when previously they had only one. Can you hear the cheers spontaneously erupting at this good news? 

Except the promises were empty and the people were duped. MMP ushered in an era of even more power for ruling elites. Local people got shafted, and their local issues were totally forgotten unless they happened to be in Auckland, in which case they became sacrosanct must-do's.

What went wrong and why have all attempts to break the Labour-National duopoly failed? There are four key areas to consider:

1. It's about MMP

Check the name again; mixed-member-proportional. It's not only about members and neither is it only about proportionality. All wannabe smaller parties forget this and go hell for leather at either trying to win seats, or building their party vote. To grow into a large third party they must be able to win and hold electorate seats AND hold their party vote across the country. Failure to do both means they wither on the vine and expire.

Examples of failure include; NZ First in 1996, they took all Maori electorates as well as Tauranga which was held by its leader Winston Peters. In total they secured 17 seats. Their failure, they could not hold the Maori seats. Then we have the Maori party which despite winning many Maori electorate seats, could not pick up enough party votes to make an impression beyond that.

2. The Media

Smaller parties struggle to get positive media coverage. If they are in the media then it's likely to be with some kind of spin attached. An example of this is the constant reference to Green list member of parliament, Golriz Ghahraman as an Iranian refugee. Or ACT's sole MP and leader David Seymour being portrayed as a simpleton (for those that don't know - he has a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical and Electronic) and a BA (Philosophy) from the University of Auckland).

Any smaller party has to be able to infiltrate across the spectrum of news cycles - see 1 above.

3. Political Appointments and Alliances

Labour and National use their connections to maximum effect. National push their connections with farming, business and certain professions such as law and accounting. When in government they appoint their own people to groups and receive reward in favourable decisions and the corresponding coverage. Meanwhile Labour do the same thing, they have established union connections and they have the nurses, teachers and social workers in their hip pockets. 

In this power play smaller parties cannot compete, in effect they're getting squeezed at both ends.

4. Government Departments and Flow of Information

Smaller parties work in a vacuum, they're starved of information and then find themselves walking into ambushes all the time. An example of this is the leaking of the superannuation details of NZ First leader Winston Peters.

***********************

To get beyond small and to become a contender, a political party must bridge the gap between it and the two main parties. It must do this by winning at least 3 electoral seats and more than 10% of the popular vote, and then hold that position or increase it to become established. At that level it can no longer be ignored at the national level and at the local level it would have the reach to also influence voters on the ground. What we are talking about here is economies of scale. Has any smaller party done this? Since the end of the Second World War, only Social Credit came close during the late 70's and early 80's. They held two electorates during this time and their popular support rose to a high of 20% at the 1981 general election. So close and yet so far and that wasn't under MMP, so it can be done, it just requires clever use of resources and effective candidate selection.

Christchurch and South Island Terrorism

The terrorist who committed the atrocity on March 15, 2019 was an Australian. Looking into his background there is nothing to suggest he came to New Zealand to commit an act of terror. NZ must face the ugly truth; it is likely he was radicalised in Aotearoa.

Is this a gun control issue? It appears he may have broken the law in getting his gun license and one of the rifles he used looks to have been modified into an advanced E category semi-automatic, not the lowest classification A category the terrorist had a license for. Bad people can get guns any time, further gun controls just make it harder to shoot the pests which damage the environment. So more gun controls won't work.

What will work? NZ needs to address the climate of xenophobia and racism that permeates its society. In particular, the South Island where white supremacist groups have operated my whole adult life. They have extreme views and are readily violent. It is highly likely that the terrorist did not act alone. There was a great degree of planning in the attack and while he was the sole shooter, others out there aided and abetted him, find them and bring them to justice.

Then we need to be intolerant towards intolerance. Every day in NZ, the media give platforms to so-called 'hosts' on the TV and radio who foment unrest with their dog-whistling comments. These people are very sly, they're as slippery as eels, never going too far and changing direction or flipping quickly to the cause or talking point of the day, they're always chasing headlines and ratings. They don't care who gets hurt, today they've got blood on their hands. Call the media companies and let them know they have to rid NZ of their voices. Kiwis - you know who they are. 

Lydia Ko: Where She Went Wrong

I'm a big fan of former world number one golfer, Lydia Ko. Former number one, and that title really rankles with me as it needn't have been so. She could have sat at the top of the world for years, and when I say years I mean a decade or more. But she blew it and I'll tell you why. She blew it as she and her parent managers were very naive.

Now what I'm about to say may sound racist. It isn't but the more sensitive out there may not want to read any further as you delicate flowers may need a lie down afterwards.

Right here goes. Lydia Ko has been very naive. How so? She engaged coaches that also look after her direct competitors. Up to that point she was looking good. Everything about her game was pretty strong. She got onto the green efficiently then drilled that putt. Drive for show, putt for dough.

Why is using coaches that also help direct competitors such a big issue? The answer is pretty simple. She's representing little New Zealand. NZ is a small country of only 4.5 million people that sits isolated and alone. No-one gets up in the morning to ask themselves what NZ thinks regarding anything. And to make matters worse, they're just a bit too good at a lot of things, like sport for instance. The clincher is that small NZ represents a tiny media market.

To be blunt about it; there are 100 reasons why NZ can be discounted and a few reasons why it should be counted and all of those reasons would be put forward by NZ. If this offends Kiwis, get over it, as it happens to be the fact of the matter.

Note that what I'm talking about is not a conscious scuppering of Lydia Ko's career. No, it is more likely unconscious bias. Think like this; if you have four people to work with, what is better. four inside the top 30 or three outside the top 20 and one at world number one? If you can't work that one out then you should never be in business. It is far better for the coach to have four in the top rank and fighting over one another to get to number one. It is certainly far more financially rewarding.

Why would Ms Ko choose such a disadvantage scenario? This is where you'll think I'm being racist: she forgot who she was representing. Or her parents forgot. They likely think they're Korean. In fact I'd be staggered if they didn't think that. But that's not who they represent. If they were representing Korea, there would be a strong incentive on the part of coaches to keep her at the top. The pay-off would be immense.

But with a NZ flag on her back, Lydia Ko does not bring big numbers with her. Any Kiwi out there on the world stage has to understand; they like you turning up and competing but they don't like you winning. If a judge or referee makes the decision then it can often go against you, so you have to put the result beyond doubt. In basketball terms I say you have to be better by 10 to win by two.

What is the answer for Lydia Ko? She has to ditch whatever game they've got her playing and go back to basics. Get the job done, and if that's boring then so be it. Bore the pants off everyone and win. Only use coaches that represent her, and no-one else. And you could add overall brand management to that as well. Any apparent conflict of interest and it must be ceased immediately, there can be no compromise.

NZ Salmon could be the Answer for California

Evidently chinook salmon are extinct in northern California, but New Zealand could hold the answer to repopulating the region.

Canterbury NZ rivers are the only place in the world where salmon, descended from the right part of California, still thrive.

Read about it here:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/103154846/rakaia-salmon-dance-into-native-american-hearts

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/105731111/nz-link-to-salmon-wiped-out-in-california-70-years-ago

Greens Naysaying Again

Why do young people vote Green? They've got to be the most negative political party I've seen. Their latest opposition is against the water export scheme from South Westland in the South Island of New Zealand. First they opposed non-renewable, now they oppose renewable as well, when will this end, when homo sapiens are back living in caves?

I wrote about the scheme here: http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2017/01/innovative-water-export-scheme.html

I notice the campaign to stop this project are completely misrepresenting where the water is to be taken from and what impact it will have on the environment. The water is not being taken from a national park, and it will have absolutely no effect on the environment.

The impact on global climate change will be positive and schemes like this should get widespread support from environmentalists. One of the problems of climate change is the lack of  cloud formation and thus precipitation from the areas where it is most needed. As an example, the Sahara desert is spreading south because of this, but the problem is global. Greening areas impacted by a lack of water holds back the tide. Water from South Westland is literally a drop in the bucket for that region but a vital resource for those that need the water.

Greens, a message, stop being silly and get behind something that helps the environment and which is renewable.

NZ School Funding: Predictive Risk Modelling

New Zealand society is about to change forever, it will mean an end to the 'give everyone a fair go' Kiwi concept and a new darker future where Kiwis will be ranked according to their familial surroundings and social status. What I'm talking about is Predictive Risk Modelling and linking that to funding of NZ schools. >>Link explaining the issue here<<

Why is this a bad idea? It stigmatises. Consider a child with no criminal record, doing okay at school, well behaved, gets along with others. But she comes from a broken home, father is in jail and a brother in jail as well. Mother was raped in the past, sister the victim of sex abuse. That child who is doing okay will be tagged a risk. Extra funding is made available to any school that takes her. The child carries a code that attracts funding and extra attention. But why?  She is not a victim apart from being in a difficult family, and has committed no crime.

The incompetent Prime Minister of NZ, Simon English is behind this. He hates the poor and wants to see all disadvantaged persecuted. NZ is on a very slippery slope, one where some will be tagged for life, while others receive a free pass. It is a very dangerous precedent.

Stop obsessing over whether NZ has surpluses and instead work toward fully funding all schools in NZ, so parents don't have to put their hands in their pockets. That'd solve the issue. Educate, educate and then educate some more. Stop with this find someone to blame nonsense and rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

When swimmable is not really swimmable

Now we get to see just how incompetent Bill English and his best friend Nick Smith really are. They do not understand that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. What the National led government of New Zealand have done is lower the standard by which water quality is measured. Dirty is the new clean. It's nothing more than outrageous.

And why is Nick Smith, Minister of Friendship with the Prime Minister, referencing overseas standards? North America and Europe have screwed over their environment, why should New Zealand do the same?

National is a political party for farmers, so it is to be expected they'd protect their own. But the reason we're in this situation is because New Zealand failed to do two things, and this will be very unpalatable for the Greens to hear.

New Zealand failed to exploit mining, and it failed to develop secondary manufacturing. Had it done both, then the land would not need to be flogged the way it is now and the rivers would be clean. Instead what we have are thousands of farms irrigating like billy-o and polluting heavily. Or the rivers don't even reach the sea in some cases.

It didn't need to be this way, but New Zealand jumped on the Thatcherite bandwagon and threw the baby out with the bathwater, gutting the country's manufacturing as it existed back in the 1980's. Then latterly the Greens, who are simply communists re-branded and can't be trusted with anything, oppose mining on any level. Grow up New Zealand, minerals in commercial quantities are concentrated in certain areas, unlock those minerals and sit back and de-intensify the farmland. Then make stuff in factories and export that output.

Greens Can't Be Trusted

The Greens are almost always wrong about everything and here's why:-

Myth: the world is over-populated.

Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.

Here's a map of Stewart Island:-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png

Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.

Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.

Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet

Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.

Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.

I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.

Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.

Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.

Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.

Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.

Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.

Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.

It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.

The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.