Saturday, July 15, 2017

Golriz Ghahraman V Andrew Atkin: Part 2.

Andrew Atkin:

Part 1. Here.

Yes it's true. Golriz Ghahraman is still deeply in love with me. She hit back at me with a screenshot (my trick!) of the ghastly Andrew Atkin, on her twitter feed.

However! She edited out the bottom part of what I wrote, which kind of frames a different picture. The screenshot below gives the complete picture. She also edited out my identity (you don't need to do that, Golriz. You can make me famous all you want).

It demonstrated my matter-of-fact relationship to the whole thing. I was hardly accusing her of being some kind of Muslim Brotherhood agent, as such, and stated that I doubted that was who she was. I also stated that only under certain conditions could any kind of suspicion be justified. Pretty fair? I think so.

Nonetheless, with a little editing out, she choose to use me to promote her victimhood status [Golriz, if you want to change New Zealand's laws, then you should accept that your unfortunate childhood history means and must mean nothing].

No doubt she didn't want me to see (or reply to) her post because she blocked me from her twitter feed. You will notice the above screenshot was from a Google search (that's how I know it even exists).

Golriz, if you want obnoxious people like me to go away, then all you have to do is explain how we are wrong. Hey - we might be! But until you do this, we "the people" will do our best to hold you to account for your silence. Understand than when you just smear people who have concerns as Islamophobes and bigots, as opposed to providing honest discourse, then that alone can provoke a degree of suspicion - a "what have you got to hide?" effect. It's surely better for your political future just to converse.

So where is this Andrew guy really at?...all I am trying to do is drive the real conversation. I want New Zealand to understand the facts about Islam - at its best and at its worst. I don't want immigration decisions being politicised. I don't want New Zealand making the same mistakes that we now know other European nations have made. Crying out "Islamophobia!" is not a conversation.

Bill Warner's video, from my screenshot:

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Golriz Ghahraman: A reign of terror?

Well I have just been crucified by Golriz Ghahraman (all my posts deleted from her facebook page). Golriz is a prominent New Zealand Green party candidate who, I predict, will be used as the dominant commentator on Islamic immigration in New Zealand.

Not only have all my posts been deleted but she has blocked me from making any more contributions, even though I was nearly the only intelligent (and respectful) commentator interested in doing more than just praising her.

But no matter. I knew the block would happen sooner or later, anyway.

The big concern I have with Golriz is that she will, in time, very likely have a huge stage on the Islam issue in New Zealand. Yet, she is not answering the enormously important questions around the dangers of Muslim immigration.

Already, she is using blunt labels towards those who are worried about Islam at its worst. She's already come out making reference to "Islamophobia", bigotry, prejudice and racism...etc.

From what I have seen, Golriz's articles do not yet get to what's real. As I have stressed to her recently and back in time, she can call us all "Islamophobes" etc, if she can first, please, address the very legitimate and understandable concerns that the so-called Islamophobes have.

And this is what I am worried about. This soon-to-be prominent New Zealander seems to be more interested in shutting down the real discussion than confronting it - thus far, at least. This isn't good enough for a prospective politician who wants to change New Zealand's laws. In fact it can be downright dangerous.

The purpose of presenting my deleted posts, that I screenshotted, is to make my case and add some pressure to the end of having the real conversation opened up [see my video here].

You can ask yourself if my comments were of the kind that could reasonably justify deletion and blocking. Again I am worried that Golriz may simply want to shut the real conversation down.

Remember, all I am asking from the Green party is to do their job. That is, respond to the real questions and concerns, and provide some real answers - please.

--Best of luck to your political future, Golriz. I have no doubt you mean well!

Note: The screenshots are not in exact order to the time posted. Benign comments have been omitted.


Here is the video link to "Islam and Hate Speech":

A direct link to the Greens policy position on Syria: Here

....Part 2. Here.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

How social welfare is killing us

Andrew D Atkin:

Social welfare today is overwhelmingly a function of taking care of the elderly, and the young through schooling.

In terms of costs, the elderly are by far the biggest consumers of welfare, especially when you include public health costs.

But to make my point, let's look at two forms of welfare: Traditional and socialised.

Traditional welfare:

Take this scenario. Your elderly parents live close in a comfortable sleepout in your backyard, giving them and you your own space. You pay for their keep in terms of food and shelter and other everyday living costs.

Though you pay more in transparent costs, with this scenario you will find that you earn more and pay far less in tax, if this is how nearly every old person in your society is taken care of - excluding, of course, those small few who do not have family to help out so then the state would step in.

With this traditional (pre welfare state) form of welfare, the elderly are not left lonely or productively redundant. They naturally help out around your house, cleaning and cooking, and caring for grandchildren and maybe homeschooling them as well. They are expected to help out as they are accountable to the hand that feeds them, which is their adult children.

This kind of welfare is extremely efficient and does not lead to abuse, because the hand that receives is directly accountable to the hand that gives. Hence welfare is fairly and humanely rationalised.

Socialised welfare:

No need to spell this one out because we live in it today. Most retired people live expensive independent lives, because they voted for superannuation - a system of nationalised charity.

I don't know if the retired are generally happier for it, but as the hand that receives is interpersonally separated from the hand that gives, there is in turn no effective accountability with respect to the welfare process.

The truth is, the rationalisations to take a pension come easy when it's seen as just "government money" to the minds of the retired. And the fight-back to unaccountable charity becomes benign when the productive generations are mostly blind as to why they are struggling, when their costs are not directly transparent (note, governments don't post you emails on exactly where your tax money goes and comes from - they should!). Instead they simply watch the cost of living forever creep up and they never clearly understand why.


All the beatup we hear about in referring to unemployed people as "dole bludgers" is a red herring. The biggest so-called bludgers (and I don't think that's a fair word) by far are the retired who, without honest investigation, rationalise their beneficiary status by reminding us that they had to pay for the welfare of their parents generation, so their benefits are really just a tax rebate. But that's a silly argument, because the ratio between the producers and non-producers was far greater in their working day, because people died much earlier in times past. Leaving them with more inheritance than bills.

The cost of socialized welfare for the retired is now massive. The retired, broadly, have gone from being useful in the past to being a crippling burden. And it's been driven by the irrational expansion of socialised welfare which has now become almost impossible, politically, to reverse. Remember that democracy is not a function of justice - it's a function of the vote.

And the results are serious. Young people are struggling to breed, or breed at a healthy (young) time, due to the cost of a vast welfare system that simultaneously wastes human resources by leaving old people redundant. Which, I would argue, is an unnatural and stupid condition.

The situation of today is clearly not a 'natural' choice - it is not a response to market priorities. It's a perverted choice driven by the mass-subsidisation of welfare. It is undeniable social-engineering and I must say on an impressive scale.

But now that our fertility rates are collapsing, and parents are struggling, we need to revise what we're doing and how we are doing it. I would argue that the situation is getting out of control, so we need to look at our social systems at their core. We need to think further than just raising the retirement age by one or two measly years. We need real reform.

Is it time to rethink traditional welfare?

This is my podcast relating to this issue:

Sunday, January 15, 2017

The Argument for stopping Urban Sprawl

Andrew Atkin:

It's true that only about 1 part in 125 of New Zealand's land area is covered over in sprawl, with much less than that being actually built on (much of the sprawl area is garden, grass and trees). Because of this, we argue that urban sprawl is not an environmental problem as it consumes such little land in the greater scheme of things. Indeed, our agrarian actions are many times more invasive.

But there's another way of looking at it.

Take this scenario. We discover 100 exo-planets close by in our galaxy that are full of life. Would that then make it okay for us to completely trash our earth, because earth is then only 1% of the life-bound planets that we specifically know of? Obviously not. The existence of other life planets, no matter how many there might be out there, in no way devalues the earth that we currently stand on. Intrinsic value is not a relativity game.

With this appreciation, we can understand the grief many might feel with the mental picture of 'mother nature' being concreted over for human settlements. Even though people may know that it's only a very small portion of the total land.

You can still argue that no matter how big our planet is overall, sprawl nonetheless paves over a lot of earth and that can reasonably be seen as a problem.

So let's take this common grief - and look at the reactions.

Kill Sprawl:

The reaction promoted by mainstream environmentalists is to stop sprawl outright. Forcing cities to go up - not out.

The problem, as most now know, is that stopping sprawl comes with significant costs. Anti-sprawl policy compromises economic development and housing affordability as it artificially enforces scarcity with land to build on, and it aggravates many other problems that come with crowded living, such as pollution and mental health problems.

Yet mainstream environmentalists hold to anti-sprawl policy, because for them the green grass should nonetheless be preserved, even at very real human costs.

Green Sprawl:

But there is another defensive potential to stop humans from concreting over the earth, again presuming that 1 part in 125 is to be seen as already too much. The idea is to design sprawl so that it doesn't need concrete (or very little of it) in the first place.

Is sprawl without concrete realistic?

Take a look at the diagram directly below. It shows us how much land we need to pave over for a functional road, for if we want to make a religion out of keeping the green instead of the grey.

You can already buy driverless pod cars, off the shelf, that can operate on little more than a couple of concrete rails like what the image below indicates. So we can get rid of most roading for new residential developments, if that is what we really want.

And take a look at the next image to get my point. We can virtually bury houses in the greenery if we insist, especially if we move in the direction of earth-houses.

Human settlement can in fact be remarkably uninvasive, and indeed it can drive ecologically-rich garden-style development. In fact there are odd spots of this kind of development everywhere. It's beautiful, and green, and potentially very affordable.

So where do the mainstream environmentalists stand with this kind of development, as an alternative possibility to Urban Growth Boundaries? That is, the idea of greening sprawl rather than outright blocking it?

The answer, sadly, is nowhere to be heard. I have promoted this possibility in forums to environmentalists in the past, and all I seem to get is a stone-cold silence to the suggestion. It's almost like they're more interested in beating-up on humans than helping out the environment!... Or, more realistically, conforming to a party-line so as to maintain their unity and preserving their backing.

It's tragic. We can so easily improve sprawl today if we really can't stand all that concrete. We have the tools to do it. There is no need, by any reasonable measure, to block human expansion. We can simply regulate sprawl to be pretty much as green as we want, if we want.

But alas, this possibility never seems to enter the public conversation on 'up versus out'. I hope this will one day change, because we're paying dearly for our current anti-sprawl policy (Urban Growth Boundaries), and most notably with a housing market where prices have gone mad. And all of it is totally unnecessary.

Extended article: