By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Insight @the BFD 19/9/19]


To The Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister of New Zealand

Well now Madam,
 
Since you seem to be a godless unbeliever who is about to enter the presence of the God-Emperor, President Trump next week, and since I’m the only writer/essayist in NZ who understands the importance of American history and the man who is now making it, I thought I’d write you a quick communique to offer a few important pointers that will be much more helpful than those you’ll receive from our meddlesome old Right Honourable Aunty Helen.

Firstly, do you remember before you became PM, when you were asked about why voters should go for professional politicians like yourself who lived off the public purse - and what you made of the anti-politicians like President Trump? (He who doesn’t even take his presidential salary.)

You answered, “What - so you elect a professional arsehole, instead?”

Then, when you became PM and met God-Emp on the sidelines of APEC, you later referred to him as, [*] “More orange than I thought he would be,” when speaking to a Kiwi sycopha... I mean, journalist. 

Professional arsehole. Orange.  Where did you go to diplomacy school Madam, the Comedy Central Roast of Alec Baldwin?

I know a lot of water has flowed under the political bridge since you made those stupendously disrespectful remarks, but what on Earth were you thinking?  That everyone dislikes him as much as you and your posse of anti-patriarchy lesbians do? Remember that, unlike yourself, he is the much adored, duly elected president of the United States who won the votes of over 63 million of his own citizens, despite having an insidious coup attempt launched during his candidacy by crooks within America’s internal intelligence agencies and the Democratic National Committee! 

But he’s the arsehole?

Secondly, if you want to be successful in his magisterial presence, drop the painfully passé, anti-nationalist, globalist bosh.  

Even little old you, when you’re feeling very brave, likes to claim that you’re going up to the U.S to talk about accepting deals that “put NZ’s trade interests first,” and God-Emp would have it no other way when it comes to international negotiations, because he understands that kind of motivation in a leader to be realistic; he practically reinvented that terminology for the current era, hence his foreign policy doctrine being christened Principled Realism.

It is time for you to give him his due for leading the way on all things pertaining to diplomatic, rational self-interest. 

Try to keep it real by thinking like the leader of just one small, irrelevant nation, not the whole blessed globe - leave that to God-Emp to do himself, just by default. He is the Chosen One and you’re not, so keep a strict awareness of the context that you are the head of a tiny little state who has to clamour to bask for one moment in the sunbeams of his glorious attention. 

Thirdly, the one-sided virtue-signalling of your pet project, the Christchurch Call, is not only tiresome, it’s dangerous.  Don’t bore God-Emp’s big brain with it.  He’ll just make politic murmurings that it’s “nice” or “tremendous” and that he agrees there should be a lot less violent extremism online and more innocent people shouldn’t have to die, let alone have their deaths filmed and watched by sick voyeurs around the world. What do you expect him to say when he has taken a very solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes the First Amendment?

And speaking of amendments that you don’t fully grasp, God-Emp just promised the American people at a rally in New Mexico that he will uphold their Second Amendment rights: “I will never ever allow them (Democrats) to take away your sacred right to keep and bear arms.” 

Got that?  In God-Emp’s great country, the cradle of the best and the worst, the right to own a gun is sacred.  This means that ordinary citizens are trusted to protect themselves against bad people and bad governments. 

Had just one other person been armed in one of the NZ mosques that Brenton Tarrant violated, many lives may have been saved. 

Apart from proving that Tarrant is a twisted little nutter, what happened in Christchurch also showed that there now exists in the West a silent, smouldering anti-Islamic sentiment which has its roots in decades of Islamic terrorism taking place inside Western nations. Too many innocent people have been slaughtered by a toxic sectarian ideology that has become wedded to the Left in a most unholy union: Islamo-Marxism. But you have had absolutely nothing to say about this widespread, recurring phenomenon, which is why I feel duty-bound to point out that your virtue- signalling on this matter is totally one-sided, that means lop-sided. 

If you’re serious about online extremism being curbed, how is it that ISIS’ potent recruitment tool, Dabiq magazine, is still available as a slick, glossy PDF for free download on every platform (including your big friend Google), in most countries including NZ and France? 

The creators of Dabiq (ISIS) hate absolutely everyone, but most especially “apostate” Muslims; those who have left Islamic lands to inva.. I mean, make a life for themselves, in Western countries.  Dabiq overtly calls for “devout” Muslims in every nation to kill these “apostates,” along with infidels like you and me, using any method that can be mustered, in every country on Earth.   

I cannot fathom why you had censored The Great Replacement, Tarrant’s manifesto, which is the personal opinion of just one killer, yet 15 issues of Dabiq with all its hatred and outright calls to barbarity and murder, spread over 60 pages per issue and punctuated by some gruesome images to boot, recruits thousands of jihadist soldiers worldwide - even from NZ - but does not seem to warrant either your scrutiny or your condemnation, let alone any censorship in the country which you currently govern. 

Furthermore, His Excellency President Macron is a very poor partner in your Christchurch Call business, considering that it was while touring France that Tarrant had a total melt-down about the sheer levels of Islamic immigration into every town of that nation - a nation which has been ravaged by Islamic terrorism, rapes, cathedral burnings and icon desecrations.  It was this state of affairs in France that flipped Tarrant’s troubled mind to perform his dastardly deed here on our shores in NZ, as a sick act of misguided revenge. 

The Yellow Vest protests inside President Macron’s own country are now into their 45th week, and French media are acting as if they are nothing to report on, because the media have been forced into a silence which they’ve accepted as the dutiful little minions they are. France does not have a clear First Amendment, unlike God-Emperor’s great country. President Macron is King Louis XVI awaiting a furious overthrow from his people, sans the guillotine.

Fourthly, it’s time for you to be far more respectful to God-Emp, since our nation needs better trade deals on oil and natural gas. Given that NZ imports 50 percent of its oil from the Middle East, through the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden, our country is dependent on the U.S and God-Emp’s sheer goodwill to defend those shipping lanes. 

You’ve made it quite clear with your kindergarten-teacher girlsplaining that our nation will not become oil and natural gas independent anytime soon, so we need excellent relations with God-Emp, now that America is set to be the world’s largest net exporter of both.  You could really learn a lot from him about real diplomacy if you are prepared to lay aside your woman’s weekly-style wittering.

Fifthly, about this flakey woman’s weekly-style that you have down-pat, you psychobabbled your way into leadership using the pure Marxist lexicon of a social-worker on steroids: “well-being budgets,” “compassion,” “kindness,” “caring,” “equality,” “collectivism,” “openness,” “inclusiveness,” “empathy,” etc, ad nauseam. 

You portrayed yourself as the heroic, female champion of the oppressed and defender of the weak. This style of yours actually earned you the label of the “anti-Trump” while you revelled in a Vogue photo shoot.

Yet, the reality that has now broken across our NZ and world media with an astonishing fury is that you failed to take seriously a harrowing allegation, which was made known to your office and ignored, of extreme bullying and the violent sexual assault of a 19 year old, female Labour Party volunteer at the hands of a male Parliamentary staffer who works in your office. 

I can’t even begin to know how you’re going to get yourself out of this one, given the empathetic and emotionally caring image you have taken great pains to cultivate, but I do know that the denial of any knowledge about the seriousness of the assault, that you are currently engaging in to media, is not going to cut it.  That line just is not believable given how much you care about “women’s issues.” 

Perhaps while you’re up in his Kingdom, you can ask God-Emp his advice on this tight spot you’re in.  He’s had a fair bit of experience with overblown, fake sex claims coming thick and fast toward him and his, only you’re an @MeTooer so you have to always believe the woman is truthful, even if she isn’t… but did you? Do you?  Maybe you could reach out to Christine Blasey Ford for some advice?  Or should you instead take some input from Judge Brett Kavanaugh?  Shoot, this really is a fine pickle for you to be in. How’s all that anti-Trumpness working out for you?

One more thing in closing, Madam Prime Minister, when you’re in the company of God-Emp next week, don’t go on a blithering, verbal rampage and try his formidable patience with Paris Accord silliness that he has already made his superior mind up on.  He, along with most right-thinking people, knows that climate alarmism is a UN hoax invented to manipulate the emotions of sheeple and co-opt economies, so before you go turning all carbon-neutral on the man, consider that he may prefer yuuuuuuuge herds of cow farts to just one of your girlish brain farts, on any day of the week.

He was very flattering to you at APEC when he singled you out to the group and stated admiringly,  “this lady caused a lot of upset in her country,” referring to the election which saw you become our PM.  Your riposte was very quick, “No-one marched when I was elected.” Cute, but maybe we should have. 

Then you unkindly indulged in that undiplomatic “orange” insult behind his back, signalling that you were not a friend. Imagine if he had said to a member of his press, “That PM of Noo Zealand is more equine than I thought she would be… neigh, neigh!”

Let’s hope that regrettable moment passed unnoticed by him (he has always had much bigger fish to fry), but the lack of exemption from tariffs on our steel exports, unlike Australia’s, would hint that it did not.  

God-Emperors are human beings too, they’re just very, very exceptional ones. Try to remember that and all may go well for you… in America at least.


[Edit: *A correction to Jacinda Ardern’s “orange” comment about President Trump. 
​“He was not as orange in real life.”]


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

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Insight @The BFD 13/9/19]

Recently-fired National Security Advisor John Bolton never liked being referred to as a neoconservative, despite holding many positions which are typical of that ideology. He was an advocate for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and has called for regime change in both Syria and Iran.  

Bolton made it known that he would support pre-emptive bombing strikes on North Korea’s nuclear facilities. He invoked the Monroe Doctrine regarding regime change in Venezuela, since that is a country existing within the same hemisphere as the United States, and he has said that the only way to deal with Vladimir Putin “is to cause him real pain.” 

It’s hard not to like the guy and it’s easy to see why Bolton has a reputation for being a super-hawk among all the hawks.

Alas, he has now clashed with President Trump one time too many on some major foreign policy issues, the result being: “John Bolton, you’re fired!”

Bolton wholly supported the U.S invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9.11, but was not a fan of the Bush-styled, altruistic, nation-building commitments which followed. 

About the war in Iraq, Bolton said years later that the only mistake Bush made was, “not handing the Iraqis a copy of the Federalist Papers and saying ‘good luck.’”  Though he thought the U.S stayed too long in Iraq before transferring authority back over to the Iraqis, Bolton agreed with the Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive strikes in order to protect U.S interests and deter foreign enemies.

More recently, Bolton thought President Trump was far too diplomatically friendly with Kim Jong-un of North Korea.  Before he was appointed as National Security Advisor, Bolton wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal making the case for pre-emptive strikes on North Korea before they acquire a nuclear arsenal which could be launched into American cities. 

In April 2018, Bolton said during an interview that Washington was looking at following the “Libya-model" for verification of North Korea’s nuclear sites.  Today President Trump has come out and said that those comments “set talks back with Kim Jong-un very badly” and Chairman Kim refused to have anything to do with Bolton after that. After all, what happened to Muammar Gaddafi (and Saddam Hussein) is probably Kim’s greatest nightmare about the Americans.  

But the main issue which caused the highly publicised firing of Bolton is U.S troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and peace-talks with the Taliban.  

The topic is truly complicated, but here’s the guts:
 
Secretary Pompeo has already held nine gruelling rounds of talks in Doha, Qatar, to get to the point where President Trump invited Taliban leaders to Camp David, along with Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani.  

Trump and Pompeo believe that Bolton, who is extremely well connected to the press, had the story about the upcoming Taliban visit leaked out into media circulation through his aides.

Pompeo’s negotiator, U.S special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, has worked on these negotiations for a year.  So far, peace-talks have been conducted separately between Khalilzad and the Taliban; and Khalilzad and President Ghani.  The enmity between the democratically elected Ghani and the brutal terror group is legendary - they cannot be in the same room together.  

The Taliban’s overt contempt for any peace process was just punctuated by another car-bomb exploding in Kabul, which killed yet another ten people including an American soldier.  The terror group gave Trump, Pompeo, Khalilzad, Bolton and Ghani the finger.

It’s been 18 years of war in Afghanistan, a U.S-led response to bin Laden’s lethal 9/11 attacks on Manhattan. There are still around 20,000 NATO troops inside Afghanistan, 14,000 of them from the U.S. The U.S want the troops withdrawn in stages over time as the Taliban agree to certain conditions including a massive reduction in violence.

The Taliban are trying to negotiate thousands of their fighters to be released from prisons, including GITMO, something Ghani will not agree to; something he should not agree to.

Ghani knows that if thousands of Taliban fighters were released from prisons, his government would risk being overthrown by the darkest forces imaginable, then it’s lights out again in Afghanistan.  

To complicate matters even further, there are those who say that Qatar is playing a very manipulative hand in America’s ongoing peace-talks with the Taliban, and that: 

Afghan officials are the first to sense that the sellout of the Kabul government is impending, and are scurrying to defect to the Taliban (in July alone there were 800 defections).

This is the quagmire that the Bush Doctrine - with its ideological commitment to ongoing nation building - and the Obama Doctrine (“strategic patience,” a.k.a doing nothing outside the status quo, got the U.S stuck-fast in).

The Trump Doctrine is “principled realism,” predicated on the over-arching concept of America First.  What does principled realism actually mean?  Trump spelled it out, as he often does, in his Riyadh speech in 2017, where he described this foreign policy guideline as, “principled realism, rooted in our values, shared interests, and common sense.” 

"Our friends will never question our support and our enemies will never doubt our determination. Our partnerships will advance security through stability, not through radical disruption. We will make decisions based on real world outcomes, not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms, not sudden intervention. We must seek partners, not perfection. And to make allies of all who share our goals."

The fact that the Taliban have not been totally obliterated in Afghanistan after 18 years of war speaks to something very ominous about how this fight has been conducted.  Perhaps in the name of poetic justice they should be made Pakistan’s problem in every sense, after all, the Taliban were generously aided in their rise and armed to the eye-teeth by assassinated Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - and it was also Pakistan that, for all those long years while America hunted him, gave sanctuary to Osama bin-Laden in Abbottabad. Pakistan is obviously not on America’s side with anything, and never has been.  Let them put up with a burgeoning caliphate along their northern border - hell, they’re practically a caliphate themselves, with nukes.  

It’s hard to see how allowing American soldiers to die for the ignoble cause of propping up a frail and flimsy democracy, that has been handed to Kabul on a thin, beaten-silver plate, can be anything close to America First policy, let alone be principled realism taking note of “real world outcomes.”

Both Trump and Bolton know that if the U.S withdraws its troops from Afghanistan - even slowly but surely - the Taliban will unleash a bloodbath, as they’ve done before, as they always do; terrorists live for bloodbaths.

Yet, this is exactly what Pompeo and Khalilzad are busy trying to avert through applying the Trump Doctrine of “security through stability, not through radical disruption.”  One can only wish them lashings of luck, guts and wisdom, considering no other doctrine has worked to date in this place called Afghanistan; this well-known graveyard of empires. 

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

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Insight @ theBFD 5/9/19]

Each and every one of us must make it our personal business to fight for our own individual happiness as if our lives depend upon it, for they actually do.

Individual human rights mean something – our lives are our own responsibility.  Nobody else can, or should, be burdened by that personal responsibility which we owe to ourselves and others to shoulder.

We are each given one life to own, to control and to cultivate.

The ethics of altruism are quite ghastly and our whole welfare system hangs on them, also it seems, much of our social standing does too.

Altruism doesn’t mean doing nice things for others, as we all like to do from time to time. Altruism means dutifully self-sacrificing to others as a moral good.

One can only ask: if all human life is valuable, including our own, why is it so often considered noble to sacrifice our own happiness, resources, goals and desires for the sake of other people? 

I’m not making the case that one should never do such a thing, there are obviously many moments during parenting, for instance, where parents do put the needs of their children before their own needs out of necessity (time, sleep, finances etc), but considering that the welfare of our children is extremely high on the personal values list which adds to our happiness, that can hardly be said to be “a sacrifice.” Our children are an immensely high value to us and maintaining our personal values is rational self interest.  

If people wish to sacrifice themselves for others, then that of course is their personal choice – especially if others may be of value to them, by why is it considered noble?

One often hears it said during obituaries or other summations of a person’s life: “Such-and-such was a good person who never put themselves first, but always thought only of others.” 

Why is that action considered to be “good”?  Only thinking of the lives of others over and above the life that one has been given, may be a mark of chronic lack of self-esteem or abject servility – and that can hardly be said to be good. 

This brand of “goodness” seems to have come down to us from 2000 years of Christian ethics, where the ethos is: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lays down his life for his friends.”

Observe that it reads: for his friends – not any old Tom, Dick or Harry.

About the only contexts that I can think of where laying down one’s life for one’s friends may be a noble act is during war-time, or during an emergency where one saves the life of another (or others) but loses one’s own life in doing so.  But the ethics of emergencies are rare and often chaotic, and they present quite different points of principle than those we can live our normal daily lives by.

To develop this topic a little further, consider the profoundly moving, so-called self-sacrificial acts of the heroic fugitive Jean Valjean, the protagonist in Victor Hugo’s great novel Les Miserables.  Valjean promises the dying young mother, Fantine, a woman he barely knows, that so long as he draws breath he will protect her small, illegitimate daughter and “raise her to the light” in fatherly devotion, despite not being her father – and despite the personal turmoil of Valjean being relentlessly hunted.  

The true heroism of Valjean’s impossibly difficult quest lies in the motive that he feels responsible for Fantine losing her job in his factory, which pushed her into poverty and prostitution, hastening her untimely death. Valjean’s personal integrity demanded that he correct this wrong, deeming it a matter which his conscience just could not ignore.

Another example of the fictional Valjean’s nobleness of spirit, when news comes to him that the known fugitive ‘Jean Valjean’ has been taken into custody and is about to stand trial, Valjean is the only person in the world who knows the authorities are holding the wrong man. Again, his sense of personal integrity in service to his conscience propels him to the scene of the trial where he reveals his identity, rather than suffer an innocent man to receive punishment on his behalf.  Valjean’s internal quandary is: “If I speak, I am condemned.  If I stay silent, I am damned.”

Can it be said then, that Valjean is self-sacrificial?  It could, but it wouldn’t be fully accurate.  He is preserving the engine of his life – the integrity of his soul – which, since his conversion at the beginning of the story, became his highest personal value.
​
There are many terribly altruistic narratives at play during our time, designed to instil guilt in those who are well-off; those who are considered to be shamefully privileged; those who are “white.”

We’re told nothing less than that we must abandon our wicked white ways and sacrifice Western civilisation’s economic system on the altar of remorse:

“We all must also push for a different economic order, given the way that the twin forces of capitalism and colonisation have amplified the power of whiteness.” 
[One guilt-ridden, white, former Rhodes scholar pursuing a PHD at Oxford]

To which I say: No thank you, sir.  This white lady’s not for turning into a sacrificial animal to assuage your mawkish guilt.

The world is what each of us makes it.  Strong, joyful, just and free people remain its most potent inspirational force.  

Ayn Rand said it best in her novel Atlas Shrugged, where she exhorts readers to remember that strength of purpose and efficacy are essential to the happiness of a human being:

“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of people be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved integrity. 

Do not lose your knowledge that our proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. 

Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it’s yours.”

So long as we count ourselves as valuable human beings, we should all live our lives acting as our own personal heroes towards the goal of attaining our happiness for the short time that we have upon this earth. The principle needs to be clear – live and let live; no sacrifice required.
​

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