The salvation of New Zealand.

New Zealand used to be full of communist influences: it was the first country to give women the vote - and also the first welfare state (coincidence? Hardly!) and race-mixing, also popular among communists. However, from 1984 onward New Zealand has finally grown up into a strong conservative country.

And remember, they did this voluntarily - not because they needed IMF loans, like third world countries do.

But what about the rise in unemployment?

Unemployment rose from 4 per cent in 1986 to 11 per cent in 1992...But remember, unemployment happens when workers get so greedy they refuse to work for lower wages. That's their fault, not the economy's.

But, while other developed countries grew by 20%, didn't New Zealand's economy actually shrink by 1%?

First of all, 1% is a very small number. Secondly, you have to remember whose economy grew - for rich people (conservatives) this got better. Who cares if things got worse for liberals?

But what about the 9% inflation after 1984?

If someone asks this, make them define inflation. If they actually can, ask for a direct quote from two separate dictionaries. If they actually manage to do this, they'll have forgotten the original point.

But what about...(Unemployment rising to unprecedented levels, negative Net migration flows, Quadrupled foreign debt, credit rating downgraded twice, Investment as a percentage of GDP halved, spending on research and development falling to half the OECD average.)?

Ask them for proof. If they give you statistics, tell them that they don't count because they're from the liberal media.

What about poverty?

Sure, so the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992, so that, by 1993, one in six adults and one-third of children were considered to be living in poverty. So what? Poverty is an incentive to work harder.

In the words of Cabinet Minister Bill Birch, income disparities "are widening, and they will widen much more. That doesn't worry me." It doesn't worry me either.

After all, look at who suffered poverty: the Maori [natives], the poor, the sick, women with children, and the unemployed - all liberal groups! Especially mothers - they think that sitting around and having your tit sucked is such hard work. Hell, most working men would pay money to have their tit sucked.

But what do you except from the first country to give feminazis the vote?

Should other countries, such as America, follow New Zealand's example?

YES! After the terror and tyranny of a democrat in the White House, New Zealand's reforms would bring the Republican party into total power. Take a look at their the seats in their congress:

"Republicans": (right party) : 53

"Democrats": (left party) : 50

"Buchanan" (New Zealand First party): 17

The balance of power, goes New Zealand First. A populist nationalist party, its strong anti-immigration and anti-foreign investment line paradoxically drew support from both radical Maori [native] groups and conservative whites. Imagine, it would be like if Buchanan had Black voters.

So in total, it's like Republicans 70, dumbocrats 50. How did they do it?

Remember, one of the effects of the reforms of 1984 is that foreign investors bought most of New Zealand. As a result, the poor blamed their problems on the foreign investors - kind of like how Buchanan gets his voters to blame Mexican workers. It's very important to give the poor someone to hate, because if they don't they'll blame us, the wealthy, and start some commie revolution.

What about health care?

The New Zealand government removed subsidies for electricity, telephone, postage and transport, most of which are now privatized. Public hospital ran an operating loss of $164 million in just one month; wards were closed to cut costs and waiting lists grow - but remember, this is only for liberals.

Who cares if they get sick and die? In the end it will mean less abortions, so over all lives will be saved. Short term pain for long term gain.

Back