By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Insight@theBFD 5/12/19]


“The nobility of England, my lord, would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount. But you’ll labour like Thomas Aquinas over a rat-dog’s pedigree! Now what’s the name of those distorted creatures you’re all breeding at the moment?”
(Sir Thomas More, from Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons)

One could put it to England’s 16th-century Lord Chancellor More that the distorted creatures the nobles of England now breed are called terrorists, though that wouldn’t be entirely fair.  Modern Englishmen do not exactly breed terrorists, but it certainly could be argued that they encourage them by allowing them to breathe the same air as human beings.

People constantly confuse terrorists with human beings, but they are not of the same species outside of sharing a common ancestor.  They’ve branched off into a sub-species all their own by pure volition. A terrorist betrays any semblance of its own humanity as soon as it begins to plot the multiple deaths of innocent people going about their daily business.

After yet another terrorist rampage in England on London Bridge last week, leaving two outstanding young people dead in the prime of their respective lives: Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, along with three other innocents injured, the nation is reacting in horror to the fact that the perpetrator had already been convicted of terrorism in the UK and was let out of prison early.  Rat-dog Usman Khan was jailed in 2012 on terrorism charges for plotting to blow-up nothing less than the great and ancient London Stock Exchange.

The UK prison system is absolutely teeming with Muslim terrorists, so everyone ought to be prepared to bet their once-secure communities that there exists plenty of others like Khan, who are just waiting to get back out into society – as well as others of their munted species who are living free in society (Anjem Choudary springs to mind) – salivating at the very thought of wreaking deadly havoc upon it.  As surely as night follows day, they will do so. 

Since we know that literally thousands of Islamic State jihadists have made their way back to their European countries of origin, and untold numbers of “foreign refugees” along with them, who came by taking advantage of the migrant crisis of 2015, such as the two Iraqis involved in the brutal 2015 Paris attacks, the only civilised response to terrorists bringing hell to Western nations is the good old-fashioned death penalty, because Death is their trade of choice. Any individual known to be involved with planning the slaughter of innocent citizens should be put-down before he manages to carry it off.
  
The West will not even begin to deal properly with this now-common threat until it’s prepared to take a much tougher stance in the name of protecting ordinary, decent citizens.

Earlier this year, it came to light that British intelligence were tipped-off by Mossad back in 2015 that the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah (backed by Iran) were plotting bomb attacks – if not inside the UK – at least from the UK.  The tip-off led British police to a North London factory where three metric-tonnes of ammonium nitrate were stored in thousands of ice-packs. A man in his forties arrested under suspicion of terrorism was released without charge. There was speculation that the plot was kept strictly secret because former Prime Minister Cameron had just signed the Iran nuclear deal, spear-headed by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. How awkward.

This plot was discovered while UK officials and political consultants were still quibbling like scholars – or labouring like Thomas Aquinas (though he would’ve had superior insight) – about whether or not Hezbollah, the Party of God, should be formally labelled a “terrorist organisation” outside of just its military wing. It since has been labelled thus. (You’d think that if an Islamic political party actually even possesses a paramilitary wing, it may present an obvious problem to the Western mind.)

Last week on his podcast, NZ broadcaster Leighton Smith interviewed a terrorism expert, Boaz Ganor, who gave his objective, working definition of what exactly terrorism is.  Ganor said:

“Terrorism is the use of violence aimed at civilian targets by non-state actors to achieve political ends.”

Such a definition would certainly include Christchurch shooter, Brenton Tarrant (according to his manifesto that we’re not allowed to read), as well as the far more ubiquitous Islamic terrorists who kill in the name of their theocratic ideology (according to their Koranic manifesto that we are allowed to read).
  
We must bear in mind that Islam is not just some defanged religion, as Christianity is now, but rather a virulent, oppressive political ideology which contains a smattering of two borrowed religions, minus the civilising political innovation that a separation of mosque and state might bring about.  The glaring lack of such a profound tenet keeps it entrenched as a religion of backwardness and of deadliness. 

When police respond to an active terrorist they often shoot to kill bringing about its death, as was the case in this latest London Bridge incident. But the rat-dog had already taken the lives of two beautiful young people and hurt others, so too late mate.

It’s way past time that the terrorists of this world were given the swift justice of a death penalty before they manage to go out and kill the civilians of European civilisation – or any other civilisation for that matter.
 
If Europe continues on its “no-death penalty for any crime” trajectory, enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, they will one day have to admit that in order to hold this legal principle as some sort of “civilised ideal,” they are fully prepared to sacrifice many innocents within their civilian populations to an imported and omnipresent evil which is only going to get much worse as this century unfolds.  We can already see the shape, form and matter of its design clearly. You’d have to be willfully blind, deaf and dumb not to.
  
During the 16th Century Reformation, Lord Chancellor Thomas More (dubbed the so-called Man for All Seasons) had many heretics executed, including English bible translator William Tyndale (1536). A year before Tyndale’s discovery, arrest and death in Brussels, More, who had put out a price on Tyndale’s head, himself went to the scaffold for opposing King Henry VIII’s divorce, under the auspices of his successor, Lord Chancellor Thomas Cromwell. Five years later, Cromwell also was to meet his death on the scaffold for treason and heresy, upon orders from King Henry after his fourth marriage, to Anne of Cleves, ended in an annulment.
 
This illustrates not why the death penalty ought to be eliminated from human affairs, but why religious tolerance with its wall of separation ought to exist between religion and state.

In our current climate, rabid, rat-dog jihadists do not recognise such a separation, so every peaceable citizen who does not believe what they believe is considered an enemy combatant in spirit – an infidel worthy of death. 

Nothing could be more openly hostile toward our hard-won civilisation than this toxic practice which is now played out in real time, resulting in indiscriminate multiple killings of women, children and men on their own national soil.
 
This barbarous malevolence must be taken seriously and be met with a severe deterrent that is proportionate. The death penalty is that proportionate deterrent.  If any one terrorist is involved in a plot to kill as many lives as possible during peacetime, they individually should have their one life taken from them before they get to commit such a despicable atrocity.  Justice, rationality and the continuation of precious liberty demands it!

I end this with an observation that all European governments, including Australia’s and New Zealand’s, should take note of: if they fail to deal seriously with this repulsive and incomparable problem via the strong hand of proper justice and laws which befit crimes, there will only be more Brenton Tarrants who will take the law wrongly into their own hands in an attempt to deal with the likes of Usman Khans and Anjem Choudarys – only, as we have seen, innocent people die in their stead.  As a clear-eyed citizen watching these ghastly events unfold during my lifetime, of that I am certain.


If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"

​

By Olivia Pierson
​[First published on Insight@theBFD 28/11/19]

A very unusual state of affairs is taking place with black voters across the United States. 

When Mitt Romney ran on the Republican ticket for the office of president in 2012, he won 8% of the black vote country-wide. When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 he held on to the votes of that same 8%.

But two recent polls – Rasmussen and Emerson – are now showing that a whopping 34.5% of Black Americans approve of the job President Trump is doing.

This represents a potential disaster for Democrats, who have always relied on winning the votes of this minority demographic.

There are several significant factors in play which are creating this change:

• rising wages and the corresponding historic-low unemployment rate 
• prison reform under the First Step Act 
• a conscious push for a BLEXIT by activists like Candace Owens who advocate for a mass black exodus out of the Democrat party
• the celebrity star-power of black Trump-supporter Kanye West

Black Americans are cottoning-on, if I may use such a phrase, to the fact that though they were represented by a black president for eight years, their lot did not improve under Obama’s administration, in fact, it got much worse. Yet in only three years of a Trump administration, the gains made for black people have been historic.

It is truly unbelievable that in today’s political climate where the liberal media-machine screams about illegal immigrants being kept in cages inside facilities on the border states – cages that were built during the Obama administration – that nothing was ever screamed about the many incarcerated black women who gave birth to babies while literally in chains.  

One such woman was Siwatu-Salama Ra, a Detroit mother with no criminal record, who was sent to prison when she was seven-months pregnant for pointing a legally-owned unloaded gun at a three-time female felon when she rammed Ra’s parked car, which contained Ra’s toddler daughter. 

She [Ra] delivered her son while incarcerated, her legs shackled during contractions, chained to a bed while a doctor checked her cervix to see how far she was dilated.
“I remember the doctor saying, ‘You guys need to take this off.’ And the officers said I had to keep them on, but that they would check and try to get permission,'” Ra recalled.
By the time the baby pushed through, the shackles had been taken off. And after having the baby she stayed awake for 48 hours, trying to get in every minute before leaving the hospital room and going back to her prison cell.

Too many women have gone through what Ra has.

President Trump’s First Step Act has banned this inhumane practice in all federal women’s prison facilities across the country. One has to ask: why didn’t Obama?  Too busy advocating for transgender bathrooms in schools and public restrooms?

America’s black community are not blind to these tragic hypocrisies when they’re paying attention.  Many of them are highly aware that they have been used by Democrats, especially over the “women’s health” activism through Planned Parenthood which disproportionately affects black women. More black babies are now aborted than born – 46% of America’s black population has been aborted since the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court ruling of 1973. So much for “safe, legal and rare.” 

35% percent of all aborted babies in America are black, a particularly disturbing statistic when one considers that they only make up 13.3% of the population. 

It’s no wonder then, that a black rap-artist such as Kanye West, whose new number one album Jesus is King is sweeping up the black community with a message of faith, hope and a new political home within the Republican party.
 
The die-hard classical music-lover in me just winces out loud when I hear and see Kanye’s jungle-jiggly music pumping out of the Lord’s House all over the United States (if I went to church at all I’d want melodious canticles and hymns to ring in my ears), but I do understand the significant sentiment that Kanye is running with: "loudly celebrate your life, your God, your family and your communities by supporting this powerful president who actually does tangibly care about our lives, our families, our livelihoods and our great country!"

While it’s certainly nothing close to an artistic renaissance, it bodes well for helping along a political one. Democrats have perpetuated the victimology that too many blacks over too many generations have bought into. They want blacks (and others) shackled to the plantation of their party, preferring to see them in the bonds of welfare and dependency – but continually voting Democrat – than see them independently prosper without any aid from the government.  Nothing could be more disgustingly cynical, but there it is.

​Democrats need the race war to keep manufacturing a false image as being the party of rescue, thereby maintaining their own relevance in the eyes of minority voters; the soft tyranny of low expectations. 

What’s becoming abundantly clear is that many, many black voters don’t see themselves as that stupid or helpless, and given that Democrats always were the party of slavery, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that they still see their coloured brethren through that myopic aperture.  Even Obama did.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"
​

By Olivia Pierson
​[First published on Insight@theBFD 14/11/19]

Universally, the word ‘betrayal’ is often understood to be synonymous with the word ‘politics,’  and for good reason.

No better recent examples can be cited than the betrayal of the NZ First kingmaker party when Winston Peters chose to enter a coalition with the far-Left Labour and Green parties. 

Now the National Party has also completely sold-out NZ voters (again) with their sycophantic virtue-signalling to climate alarmism, made manifest by their full support of the Zero Carbon Bill which passed in parliament last week with National’s unanimous blessing. 

Kiwis have to face an appalling fact: apart from David Seymour’s ACT party, there exists no ‘centre’ or ‘centre-Right’ conservative influence in NZ politics, and it’s been that way for some time.  Seymour’s signature issue has been his End of Life Choice Bill, so for conservatives who strongly believe in the sanctity of life, voting ACT rubs painfully against the grain of their conscience.

Enter the viability of the New Conservative Party, led by Leighton Baker and his deputy, Elliot Ikilei. 

I’ve never met Baker, but I’ve seen and heard Ikilei speak on several occasions in person, and also in the media, and my overwhelming impression of him is very positive. He’s passionate, decent and strong, he likes to debate, has a booming voice and clearly relates well to young men and boys, especially those from Maori-Pacifica backgrounds.
 
Ikilei is a freedom of speech stalwart, recognising that no other liberties can ever be fought for, or upheld, without that particular liberty being intact. 
 
Speaking of liberties, the New Conservatives advocate for a sovereign NZ nation with one law for all, a nation which governs itself, not a nation which submits itself to orders and decrees from the ominous body of the United Nations. 

On the education front, the New Conservatives promote some much needed normalcy. 

Recognising that state schools now resemble leftist, radical indoctrination camps rather than sound institutions of learning, they believe that “gender identity should not be taught in schools, apart from offering help for those struggling in that area.”  

“Parents should be notified of any intended school based sex education programmes including details of any aspect which may be contentious. The right of parents to withdraw their children from school based sex education must remain. Sex education should not be started in schools until after Year 9. Family Planning should be required to include abstinence and long term relationships as the option with the statistically proven best outcomes for all in their syllabus, or lose their funding.” 

They also fully support the continuation of charter schools and correspondence education for families who desire it.  They want parents, not the state, to have more control over the minds and education of their own children.

Regarding Emissions Trading policy, the New Conservative position is: 

“New Conservative rejects the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which imposes significant taxes and costs on everyday New Zealanders whilst not achieving or improving environmental outcomes.

New Conservative believes that a better way to reduce emissions is to set achievable targets and then supply funds to research institutes and universities to find emission solutions that help industries meet their targets whilst still remaining in business. An existing example of this is the Zeecol application in dairy farming.”

Since our government is hell-bent on replacing the farming sector with forestry, the Zeecol application is an ambitious system of zero-impact farming which converts all effluent and waste into energy, feed and fertiliser that farmers buy back at a much lower price from the company. Zeecol went into liquidation in 2018, indicating how challenging converting to zero-impact farming can be, but the company’s original founder, William Mook, claims that “NZ needs this” and “it will happen.”

On the New Conservative website, remarkably they have a stated policy on NZ and Israeli relations, which includes:

• Establishing a NZ Embassy in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem immediately
• Recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights
• Apologising to Israel for NZ’s sponsoring of Resolution 2334
• Strengthening trade ties with Israel to allow both nations to benefit from technology gains
• Upholding the right for Israel to defend itself and its borders
• Immediately ceasing any NZ funding of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian  Refugees (UNRWA)
• Encouraging and financially assisting Arab nations to accept and grant full citizenship to refugees.

The support that the New Conservatives intend toward Israel is truly commendable – and entirely rare in NZ politics – while also displaying a belly-full of guts. 

In December 2016, National dismally caved to the UN and voted against Israel (Resolution 2334) for building settlements on the West Bank, land that Israel acquired when the surrounding Arab nations, Egypt, Syria and Jordan, tried to obliterate their country by initiating the 1967 Six Day War. 

In stark contrast to National, New Conservatives display their understanding of the truth that Israel was the victim here and not the aggressor. The West Bank was rightfully retaken by Israel – a tough lesson for Jordan – but there it is; don’t damn-well make war on your neighbours! (Especially if they happen to be the tough survivors of a recent mass genocide.)

The New Conservatives’ point about “encouraging and assisting Arab nations to accept and grant full citizenship to Palestinian refugees,”  is a point that must be made again and again, though never is.  The Arab world boasts adherence to the great “religion of peace” – Islam.  Why then has it wilfully failed to take in their own brethren and co-religionists by not offering them citizenship in the 22 Islamic nations which make up the Arab League?

While we happen to be touching on the topic of other cultures so very different from our own, the New Conservatives also take a bold stand on their immigration policy by stating, “We believe that those who choose to immigrate (to NZ) should embrace New Zealand’s culture and not try and change it.” 

“New Conservative will ensure there is no acceptance or allowance of Sharia Law, in any expression, as well as any non-constitutional jurisdictional authority, in New Zealand.”

Confronting the Sharia creep into Western law systems – from the UK to Germany –  is a salient insight on the part of New Conservatives and something they wish to avert NZ from: specifically, parallel legal councils based on another culture and religion.  All immigrants to NZ must be accountable as citizens under only one legal code.

The New Conservatives seem to understand what the most essential role of government is – to secure and maintain the natural rights of citizens:

“New Conservative believes the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to justly pursue their own goals whilst ensuring support is available to those in need. We believe in Justice for all and that punishment should fit the crime. We believe in hand ups, not hand outs, and that when people are empowered to use their natural skills and abilities, the nation will be strong.”

The New Conservatives squarely occupy the ground of the Christian-right. Regardless of whether voters are believers or not (I happen not to be), the Christian cultural heritage of NZ is undeniable and for the sake of balancing-out the mixed bag of secularism currently embedded in this nation’s politics, on both the Left and the Right, to see a party uphold old-school values in keeping with our traditional heritage smacks of something that is somewhat restorative. 
 
This is the sort of small party I would like to see grow into something substantial enough to replace NZ First as a ‘kingmaker’ party.  If the New Conservatives do manage to achieve something close to that status, the swift currents of radical Leftism in both major parties may be tempered by some much-needed decency and good old-fashioned values.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"
​