2018: “Get Woke, Or Shuffle Off”
June 8, 2021
By AHNZ
On 14 June, 2018, the hospital drama Shortland Street televised a racial agenda about replacing “puffed up privileged pakeha men.” The words were on behalf of the CEO of the hospital at the climax of the episode.
“You know what I see in this hospital? The last gasp of a dying age. Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change. And we are the future, Esther, not them. Oh they’ll struggle as they fall but they will fall, and I’m here to make sure the right people take their place, kei te pai?”
These words were a moment in history, the early murmurs of a particular social movement that has become more mainstream since.
The CEO character was pulling strings to help cover up Maori domestic violence and further the career of a Maori nurse. “Why are you doing this?” asked the younger Maori in order to elicit the above answer. She was to receive special treatment as part of a race-based and sex-based agenda for change. Due to the great power imbalance, the Boss was soliciting the Novice to become a compatriot of her covert conspiracy unethically and with huge pay-offs for getting on board. The show presented this as normal and even praiseworthy.
The Shortland Street writers seemed to me, at the time, to have plagiarised the villain of the X-men (2000) movie, Magneto. “We are the future, Esther, not them.” says the CEO. In a very similar conversation, Magneto says “We are the future, Charles, not them. They no longer matter.” The drama of this comic-book film is based on the civil rights conflict between the methodology of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. How best to fight for change? One man says mankind is not evil, just uninformed. Change can come peacefully. The other man is not willing to wait and is happy to power ahead violently. In the comics, the violent character is a supervillain and there’s another point of view to contest him. In Shortland Street there is only one voice, the villain, and she is portrayed as the good.
There was a complaint at the time to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about this episode but it was not upheld.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness
Denis Hall complained this scene was ‘blatantly racist, sexist and ageist’ for its portrayal of ‘white males’ as ‘unreasonable, arrogant and dangerous with nothing to offer’. Mr Hall submitted the phrase ‘puffed up, privileged Pakeha’ in this scene and the implication that white males are a problem that need to be replaced was ‘offensive’ and ‘a dangerous discourse to introduce to the type of impressionable young people who tend to watch Shortland Street’.- BSA (2018)
BSA signals end to te reo Māori complaints, RNZ (2021)
Since that time the BSA has refused to consider any complaints about Maori language at all. It seems probably that they will be able to follow this up by refusing to consider complaints about Maori hegemony or sexism toward men too. After all, apparently, people are already being arrested for making complaints of that nature on their own Youtube channels!
(Ref. Charged for publishing objectionable material. Media reports it as ‘threatening’ or ‘threatening to kill’ Maoris.)
“Their Archaic Species is Becoming More Extinct”
Having been safely ferried through mainstream acceptance by the BSA the above sentiments next advanced to mainstream politics. Co-leader of the Maori Party, Rawiri Waititi, Tweeted…
“Caucasian’s and their ‘active assimilation agenda’. Pay them no attention, their archaic species is becoming more extinct as new Aotearoa is on the rise.”- Waititi, Twitter (before being redacted)
“The cau casity [sic] of Caucasian’s [sic] and their ‘active assimilation agenda’. Pay them no attention, their archaic species is becoming more extinct as a new Aotearoa is on the rise. Tangata Whenua + Tangata Tiriti = Aotearoa > Tangata Whenua + Pakeha = Old Zealand.”- exact quote according to Stuff news
Again, we have phrasing around the idea of extinction and irrelevance on the part of the Out Group. Again, the Out Group is ‘assimilationist causasians’ who are ‘archaic’ and ‘power-drunk’ and ‘male’ as opposed to the ‘future’ ‘new Aotearoa rising’. The MP did not retract but did delete his Tweet, blaming a staff member for it. He did not blame them for being wrong, only for misunderstanding his “messaging.” This suggests that, like the Shortland Street CEO, the replacement agenda is extant but covert. It seems to be essential to the strategy that it be Fabian, playing a long game without a song and a dance and an Open Society debate but winning in the end.
“These Racists Are a Dying Breed of Dinosaur”
The latest iteration of the same pattern has come from opinion-writer Tony Wall. The sentiments are the same but this time it’s non-fictional and someone is taking responsibility for what they have said. And, it’s a white man saying it.
“I just have to keep reminding myself that these racists are a dying breed of dinosaur and the melting pot will sort them out in the end…They need to get woke, or shuffle off.” – Tony Wall, Stuff (June 2021)
This article expands our vocabulary of In Group and Out Group and now it looks like this..
In Group: “21st Century Aotearoa,” “woke,” “new Aotearoa,” “on the rise,” “the future,” “taking the Out Group’s place.”
Out Group: “white, privileged rednecks,” “clowns” who are “loosers,” “need to die,” “puffed up, privileged Pakeha men,” “Caucasions,” “drunk on control,” “assimilationists,” “dinosaur,” “archaic species,” “dying age,” “becoming extinct,” “dying breed,” “last gasp,” “terrified of change,” “struggling as they fall.”
Why did it take one of the Out Group to switch to the In Group to elaborate the Fabian playbook this way? What’s exceptional about Tony Wall is that he’s spilling the beans and putting his name and face to the agenda.
Rodney Hide has an answer: “It can’t be easy for him working at Stuff. He distracts from his own white privilege by yelling racist at his town…He should accept he’s old, white and male. And start apologising. I am sure there’s a course that could help him.” Ref. Racist dinosaurs call for one person, one vote, BASSETT, BRASH & HIDE
(Ref. also Converted to Islam after the Mosque Attacks, NZB3)
Why We Cannot Have a State
Issues like these show us why we must be Anarchists. It’s why I’m an Anarchist. I accept that all groups/tribes/races/gangs/etc are always out to colonise each other. Every In-Group is trying to establish hegemony over every Out-Group. That’s nature and we don’t need to try to stop that.
That’s why we can’t have a State. The prize of being a supreme government with power to criminalise and cancel is the great danger. There really are people out there who want control over everyone else for their In Group and that is why we cannot have a State.
Capitalism is the great social system it is because it is the Open Society, it is pluralism. It allows for all sorts of languages and cultures and religions to co-exist all in once place without people trying to kill or colonise one another. The institution of religious tolerance came out of our Western heritage after so many In Group/Out Group people killed each other, taking turns burning each other at the heretic’s stake, that the survivors both decided to let the matter drop. Somewhere along the way we’ve lost that institution in our society and will need to relearn it.
—
Note: “shuffle off” is a euphemism for die.
Ref also. Obnoxious Misandry and Anti-White Racism on TVNZ, Solmaz Jahan, Right Minds (2018)
Ref also. STUFF NEWS HAS TO STOP ITS WHITE HATE PROPAGANDA, Red Baiter
10 thoughts on "2018: “Get Woke, Or Shuffle Off”"
Leave a Reply
Like Comment Share
Hi Y’all, not commenting on fb…
I been in WA 17 years, and i don’t understand 1/2 of all these Maori phrases and words everyone seems to throw around like a virtue signal.
The place where I work, a bar, pub really; there’s a big group of Maori that hang out there, some have lived here a long time, some fresh off the boat, some mozzies, born here. I don’t see the same name dropping of te reo (I know that word, I sent my boy to kohanga when he was small cos there was no playcentre in my town, 25 years ago).
I have met some that are up with the lingo, but not many.
Just saying, I’m a bit left behind, as are all the kiwi living in strya, maori or not, seems to me only the realm of activists etc, using the words as power and control, cos Idk wtf they’re on about….
Thanks for pointing that out. It helps me understand what’s going on here.
The new macron Maori Wokeness is not about anything authentic and not about Maoris either. It’s a way to control white people through their guilt. Until that gets tapped out we’ll see plenty more of it. That will leave genuine Maori culture worse off. The media and politicians will then move on to finding some other way to pick our pockets. Our only choice is what way that will be, or, in what way shall we let our guard down?
Ref. also http://ahnz.anarkiwi.co.nz/2018-language-trauma/
WRT the last paragraph “Why We Cannot Have a State”,
This is a false conclusion. The state is the natural expression of a nation as a superorganism. You recognise in-group and out-group, and the inveitable conflicts between them, yet disclaim your birthright to a state that embodies your interests. You are rejecting the principle of statehood instead of recognising the current order prevailing in the west (incl the NZ state) as illegitimate. This is simply a distorted view of life born of poisonous liberalism. Embrace the sovereignty of your nation and your race and work with others to create the future, friend. We need not be cruel or evil to others in order to secure our own.
You can email me if you want to discuss this further: basedorcringe@protonmail.com
I agree. The glaring issue with anarchy is that it leaves a vacuum in the place where power once stood. Like any vacuum, it is desperate and destined to be filled. How do you stop states from forming in such a void if you have no state to stop such states from forming?
The state in its natural and intended form is simply the sovereign political manifestation of its peoples will and interest. The solution to a corrupt state is not simply to do away with states all together, but instead is to carve out the rot and install political systems that are actually representative of its citizens. While I agree that it would likely be better to not have a state than have ones that which actively try to displace and replace its own founding populace, it would be far better to have governmental entities that actually fight on behalf of our interests and identity. Is it even remotely surprising that when you introduce different groups with their own different collective racial interests and identities they’re inevitably at odds with the will of their host nation and they end up subverting her and her people in every conceivable way possible?
Nation is simply blood and soil. You cannot have a functioning state without a nation and you cannot have a functioning nation without a state. What we have right now all over the West are simply “countries” with a relentless influx of non-Whites who are slowly consuming us. The way to fight against it is to collectivize and to form communities and systems that serve to serve us.
“The glaring issue with anarchy is that it leaves a vacuum in the place where power once stood.”
How so? Why suppose that free people cannot have this power for themselves and their own communities without having to hand it over to a central power in Wellington or nothing?
“How do you stop states from forming in such a void if you have no state to stop such states from forming?”
Great question although it’s infected with statism. They’ve got you thinking that the lack of a state is a ‘void’ and that the only solution to the absence of a state is to have a state…because that’s the only way to stop a state from forming!? Where is the logic in this circle?
“political manifestation of its peoples will and interest.”
As everyone knows, will and interests cannot be aggregated. They exist only in the individual. There is no such thing as a collective will or the feeling of a group. There is ‘Group Think’ but that’s not an aggregation but a charismatic figure with the hold of fear over masses of people.
“The solution to a corrupt state is not simply to do away with states all together, but instead is to carve out the rot and install political systems that are actually representative of its citizens.”
It’s all rot. The only way to represent all citizens is in a free market for ideas and values not to have systems and institutions that tell us what to think and feel and love and hate. The marketplace of values doesn’t need a proxy to represent it. All attempts to do so are simply a disguise for someone’s individual agenda to force their will on others. It works because we are statist, we buy in to this cover story that there’s any such thing as a universal will or national spirit or representative central government.
“..it would be far better to have governmental entities that actually fight on behalf of our interests and identity. ”
Not at all, that’s the worst thing of all. Fighting for your own interests and identity is what makes you alive so why would you outsource that to a government? Children do it for their parents but that’s age appropriate. This has been hijacked and used against grown adults who are not ready to take their next stage of development. Maoris and the Deaf, for example, have been conned into thinking they’ve won something by handing over their interests and identity to the government to administer. Of course, it will destroy them instead. Your autonomy belongs to you, not a committee. Politicians only want to use it, not protect it. They’ll throw it all away.
“…you cannot have a functioning nation without a state.”
Why not? We used to. Then we had a very small state but it got bigger and bigger. Interestingly, we became less and less of a nation. Or do you think the national spirit was less in the past? I find it to be much greater. These days it barely has a pulse…it’s Anika Moa singing about MacDonalds hamburgers.
“What we have right now all over the West are simply “countries” with a relentless influx of non-Whites who are slowly consuming us.”
Contrast that with 1950 or 1920 or 1900 or…
The enemy is not non-Whites, it’s ourselves. We’re consumed by guilt, we lack boundaries. We are what C.S.Lewis called ‘men without chests’ because we decided to let the state be our chests.
“The way to fight against it is to collectivize and to form communities and systems that serve to serve us.”
Individuals form communities. Statists form networks. Anarchists trust in people, not systems. Systems will always let you down but relationships do not. There is a desire in the statist (especially North Americans) to come up with a machine or process to replace their relationships for them, to be their wife or parent or liaison with their fellows. It’s rather lazy and anti-social and the more we give into it the more politicians willingly seize that power and further centralise it. We become less of a nation and more of a corporate entity made up of disaffected parts. And, in that playing field, the non-Western migrants will out-compete us every time.
Thanks for your comments.
“The state is the natural expression of a nation as a superorganism.”
It’s unnatural and a corruption and not super.
“You… disclaim your birthright to a state that embodies your interests. ”
I recognise that a state cannot embody our interests, it’s antithetical to them by definition.
“You are rejecting the principle of statehood instead of recognising the current order prevailing in the west (incl the NZ state) as illegitimate.”
Not instead. As well as. Why can’t we reject both?
“This is simply a distorted view of life born of poisonous liberalism.”
I’d appreciate you backing up that sweeping diagnosis. Can you say more about how you figured this out?
” Embrace the sovereignty of your nation and your race ”
Why do you place race and nation above the sovereignty of the individual? Perhaps you can convince me. But dropping adjectives and conclusions down from a great height isn’t going to work!
How do you see the state as a corruption and unnatural? It occurs in every single case of a nation. The state is the organisation of its constituents as a formal interest group. Of course, states can, and have, historically, embodied the interests of our nations and our race.
>Not instead. As well as. Why can’t we reject both?
You can, but it’s fruitless and needless to reject the state in principle. Why should I reject something in principle, simply because it’s being used against me? I want a good, healthy, strong nation. Right now, our nation is weak. Our in-group is weak and sick. Should I reject my group in principle too? No.
>“This is simply a distorted view of life born of poisonous liberalism.”
>>I’d appreciate you backing up that sweeping diagnosis. Can you say more about how you figured this out?
I meant that political anarchism was born of liberalism, and that this is a legalistic and unnatural worldview.
>Why do you place race and nation above the sovereignty of the individual?
Because this is our fundamental nature. We’re social animals. That doesn’t mean that we have to transgress upon somone terribly, if they’re slightly out of line, but social involvement is natural and healthy. Families, and relationships are natural and healthy. Et cetera, et cetera, until we reach large scale social organisations like a nation, in whose case the state is emergent (or deliberately organised depending on your point of view) as a vehicle for conducting their affairs externally (as a representative) and managing them, internally.
The foundation of my worldview is that we are interconnected at the most basic level. We are a part of our families and nation, our blood, and they are a part of us. The wellspring from which we are born is more vital and important than the streams and valleys it produces, however precious those might also be. Furthermore, we CAN only be sovereign as individuals in any real sense, as part of a nation. I have not really “placed” the sovereignty of the individual under that of race and nation – I simply recognise that it is so. Which sovereign individual contests in warfare or diplomacy with states? How is the inevitable hierarchy of the natural world represented among individuated people? Can you show me such a group? How would you compare them, except by referring to their connections to actual societies or states or their positions within those (if they had them)?
Indeed, were you to show me such a person, they would surely be a man out of time, for anyone who dissents individually from ANY order, will be crushed by it or tolerated by it, not truly sovereign in his own right. That’s our nature and the way of the world. If a man decides to live apart from society and become a hermit, how can he subsist as such without the CONSENT of the group he seperates from. His sovereignty is contingent, and so he is not sovereign at all.
If you’d like to converse with me by voice, contact my email 🙂
” It occurs in every single case of a nation.”
So you’re mistaking frequency for ‘superness’ and ‘natural’. Or do you have a reason for why you say statism is super/natural?
” it’s fruitless and needless to reject the state in principle”
Why is it fruitless and needless? I think it’s the most fruitful and needful thing of all. Statism is remaining a child, arresting development, remaining a dependent on an Alpha power. You can’t just drop adjectives like ‘fruitless’. This isn’t a government school.
“This is simply a distorted view of life born of poisonous liberalism.”
>>I’d appreciate you backing up that sweeping diagnosis. Can you say more about how you figured this out?
“I meant that political anarchism was born of liberalism, and that this is a legalistic and unnatural worldview.”
OK well you’re legalistic and unnatural too. Stale mate. You can break this impasse by making an argument or we can just lob adjectives back and forth and resolve nothin’.
>Why do you place race and nation above the sovereignty of the individual?
“Because this is our fundamental nature. We’re social animals. ”
That’s not an answer, just a re-stating of your position. I was asking you to back that up. Why?
” natural and healthy. Et cetera, et cetera, ”
You’re taking a good shot at a difficult subject and I appreciate that. But to continue I must ask you to extend yourself a bit.’
“The wellspring from which we are born is more vital and important than the streams and valleys it produces,”
But we are in dispute as to what that wellspring is, individual or collective. And you’re trying to carry on as if this were settled in favour of your own preferred answer. Perhaps because you’re trying to collectivist this conversation and leave the other individual, me, out of it?
“I have not really “placed” the sovereignty of the individual under that of race and nation – I simply recognise that it is so. ”
Can you put this recognition into some sort of words and communicate them? I can recognise things too or confer the status of ‘recognised’ on my statements. Doesn’t get us anywhere though does it? Evenly matched wills. I could say it’s ‘common sense’ or ‘policy’ but if you’re smart you’ll just say that back at me. Someone, sometime, needs to make an argument or stop making bold claims.
“That’s our nature and the way of the world. ”
No. Stuff I said is natural and the way of the world. Touche. (see how that works?)
To back up what you say there needs to be more than announcements and assertions. Your lack of imagination or conception about warfare or diplomacy is not an argument. This sort of dialectic gets you points in government exams but that’s not the forum you’re currently in. Need reason and evidence to settle the issue not adjectives and pronouncements.
“Why should I reject something in principle, simply because it’s being used against me? ”
That’s not the argument.
It’s that you should reject something in principle because it is and can only be against you by its very definition. Such is the state.
cringe