the Zine page for current issue of news and articles concerning New Zealand life and culture in 1996 NZine became New Zealands first interactive online magazine showing NZ to the world warts and all New Zealand Regional Information and Links to New Zealand Resources contact the publishers and editorship of NZine
clickable listings of previously issued NZine articles - over 1000 still of interest Add your comment to the NZine guestbook - also join and use forums for more interaction
 
Search Articles  

  
           Home >  Culture  > Wizard  :

The Imperial British Conservative
Party - Part 1

The Wizard Of New Zealand - 18/7/98

I founded the Imperial British Conservative Party in New Zealand in 1974 having stood three times as an independent candidate in the Australian general elections. I fully realise that the mere mention of such words as "Imperial", "British", and "Conservative" is likely to produce shudders of fear or mocking laughter. However, before rejecting it out of hand, I beg the reader to temporarily suspend his or her educational conditioning and follow this brief explanation of my choice of such an unpopular title for a political party.

Anti-Imperialism
Is there anyone who is not an anti-imperialist these days? It's like being anti-slavery or anti-cannibalism. It seems so obvious that imperialism is a bad thing. Images of cruel imperialists in pith helmets beating up natives and taking their land have become a cliche and sometimes reach heights of absurdity when used as propaganda to support a new ruling elite.

For example Australians often portray themselves as good honest folk who came to a new land to get away from a wicked British government. The story goes that when they arrived they found nasty red-coated troops still oppressing them. When these good folk became independent (without a shot being fired) they began to portray themselves as freedom-loving heroes who had thrown off the yoke of an occupying power.

Yet both the settlers and the troops, being a mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish were all British. Apart from the convicts, the only people who really were oppressed were the Aboriginals, and their lot did not improve under the new ruling elite of "dinkum Aussies" who were being taught in the schools to despise their British roots. In fact the treatment of the native peoples worsened.

They were only copying what had already taken place in the USA when the colonists "threw off the yoke etc." of the nasty British, and behaved even worse towards the native people.

In New Zealand, until they became "Americanised" and began copying the life style of the wretched blacks in the urban ghettos, Maori had more trust in the fairness of the Crown than in the New Zealand Parliament. Parliament had a record of authorising illegal land grabs for the settlers who voted for it and ran it, in spite of the opposition of the central government in the United Kingdom.

The economic benefits of Imperialism
Though not perfect, (and what government in the history of the world has been perfect?), imperialism often introduces a much higher standard of living to people living in dire poverty and disease, with frequent outbreaks of famine. Anti-imperialism has often had exactly the opposite effect. Look at Africa today. Only a red-necked anti-imperialist can do so without questioning their own educational conditioning.

Imperialists brought the sugar to the West Indies and the rubber to Malaysia etc. and, given enough time, built up the economic infrastructure in their colonies in a much sounder fashion than international communism (led by Russia and China) or international capitalism (led by the USA and Europe).

The economic benefits of Anti-Imperialism
The Spanish colonies in Latin America may not have had the advantages of being administered by the British Colonial Office but for a century and a half the largely hidden political interference of the North Americans in South American states has been catastrophic to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people there.

North Americans brought in revolutionaries like Bolivar and backed them with money and weapons to overthrow the Spanish administrators and replace them with corrupt dictators who could be easily manipulated by American and European investors. The only beneficiaries of anti-imperialism are multinational corporations and the corrupt new rulers of the "independent" ex-colonies.

Are Russia, America and China anti-imperialists?
To someone who tries to think for himself, rather than simply regurgitating propaganda cliches learned at school and university, I cannot see how the world powers who have replaced the "wicked" British Empire are free from the expansion of political and economic power that we associate with imperialism.

At the end of WW2, at Yalta and Teheran, the USA and USSR jointly carved up the British Empire, exhausted by years of a lone struggle against the Nazis. Spheres of influence were settled. America bribed her allies and Russia bullied hers but both became imperial powers in all but name.

Imperialists who are prepared to admit they are imperialists have responsibilities towards their colonies and introduce not only a properly functioning economic infrastructure but bring freedom from tyranny or chaos, better medical care, education, and often grant citizenship rights to indigenous peoples regardless of race.

Judged by this standard the British Empire was a remarkable success and the pseudo anti-imperialists with their puppet colonies have a truly ghastly record. How can anyone who studies history impartially conclude that the end of the British Empire was a good thing and the heartless, faceless, multicultural and corrupt Global Economy replacing it is to be admired?

Cultural Imperialism
The phrase, "Cultural Imperialism", is often used to describe the flood of American products into all regions of the world. This is terrible misnomer, since this influence is not cultural but anti-cultural. The only branch of human knowledge which specialises in studying human cultures is anthropology.

Anthropologists define culture as an integrated set of beliefs and practices, or values, which produce cohesion and give meaning to a people. The mass adoption of American consumerism and their "neophiliac" rejection of the past has resulted in the collapse of cultures and their transformation into corrupt and shallow imitators of the American Dream of materialism and freedom from tradition.

Multiculturalism and the New World Order
Anthropologists would also reject the use of such a word as "multicultural" to describe a properly functioning society. Any society or nation only exists because it has a culture which identifies it.

The word "multicultural" is often used to justify the erosion of the existing culture with its laws and customs in preparation for a take-over by a conglomerate of irresponsible multi-nationals whose only interest is in personal gain for their managerial elites. In other words, the New World Order.

In my next article (Part 2) I will attempt to define the meaning of the cultural concept "British". In it I will question the assumption that such geographical categories as "New Zealand", "Australia", "Asia", or "Pacific", are terms which have any cultural meaning. I also bring in a word of caution about the use of the word "mankind" to justify the destruction of existing cultural values.




 
Home       NZ Map       Contact       Recent Articles       Your Views      

Copyright 1996 - 2005 NZine - A Quality Service from Plain Communications LTD