An Open Letter to the ACT Party Regarding Candidate Selection

datePosted on 20:37, July 12th, 2011 by Lew

Dear ACT Party Leaders,

As you may know, I was brought up in Wanganui, and keep an eye on events there. So it was with great interest that I received the below letter, published in the Wanganui Chronicle on 8 July 2011.

ACT’s announcement of the second ‘Don’ in the ‘Don and John’ lineup today was well-received, and if I may be so bold as to say so, I think the author of this letter also has a lot to bring to their table. I quote it in full:

Taniwha real
In reply to Dusty Miller (letters, July 1), I’m not one of those experts, but I do believe the taniwha to be real, not imagined, and I’ll tell you why.

Perhaps the ancient Celts of New Zealand may never have known war or possessed weapons, as prior to Maori being brought here by Zheng He New Zealand had never been threatened internally nor externally and there was no need.

However, New Zealand was visited by Viking ships and Scottish birlinns (a birlinn is similar to a Viking ship) which used to trade with resident Celts. The sailors of these vessels were fierce, battle-hardened warriors with far superior weaponry and military discipline compared with Maori.

As the bow and stern design of these ships is similar to the head and tail of the taniwha, I could well imagine that the sight of them would strike paralysing fear into the heart of any Maori confronted by them, and for this reason I believe the taniwha represents these ships.

Believing this to be the truth of the taniwha, I would not think these ships could be found in a small creek or marshland because of their size.

Taniwha artwork is yet another example of Maori following the culture of those who came here before them, the Celts.

IAN BROUGHAM
Wanganui

I believe Mr Brougham’s Qualifications for Candidacy are Strongly Evident in this Letter. It provides a striking yet unconventional Insight into New Zealand history, weaving back together the varied strands of the rich Tapestry of our origins which Revisonist Historians who hate their own Culture have spent hundreds of years unpicking. In particular, he illustrates comprehensively how Maori, far from being Indigenous, were simply the first wave of Hostile Asian Immigrants to these fair shores. He shows due respect for our Noble Celtic Elders, who were clearly Men who thought like Men, and he recognises their manifest superiority over the Maori, in Warfare, Navigation, Art, and undoubtedly in other Fields as well. Despite his modest claim to not being an Expert, he is clearly Learned, but this does not prevent him Sharing his bountiful wisdom with others, as Readers can see by his patient Explanation of what a ‘birlinn’ is.

Furthermore, Mr Brougham has confirmed himself to be of Sound Mind regarding other crucial policy topics of our Time — protesting strongly against the ‘h’ being forced into ‘Wanganui’ by those same forces of Revisionism, and against the Emissions Trading Scam, by supporting the Endeavours of that noble veteran of the ACT ranks, Muriel Newman — herself also a believer in the undeniable Truth of New Zealand’s Celtic Settlement, and who herself certainly thinks like a Man.

Moreover, Mr Brougham already has more than a Decade’s political experience, having stood under the mighty Equal Rights banner in local body Elections, and for the OneNZ Party (a Sister to the redoubtable One Nation party in Australia) at the National Level. Indeed, while the 0.67% of the Vote he received in the 2005 General Election is unjustly low, it is similar to what the ACT Party is presently polling.

As one final thing, everyone knows that to succeed in politics you need a strong Hand. With the unfortunate departure of John Ansell, ACT presently has Two Pair — Don Brash and Don Nicolson, John Banks and John Boscawen. As everyone knows, Two Pair is a strong Hand, but not strong enough to ensure Victory. Adding Mr Brougham would restore ACT to Full House status, giving the party a Hand that could only be beaten by Four of a Kind (which I think we can all agree is unlikely); or a Smith & Wesson which, as the lore of our American brethren confirms, even beats Four Aces (this is also unlikely because the Liberal Culture-Hating Revisionists are too afraid to permit Noble Celts from arming themselves against Tyranny). Mr Brougham would complete the Full House because, as you wise Celts of the ACT leadership are surely aware, “Ian” is simply a Celtic rendition of “John”.

Mr Ian Brougham is well Qualified to join the Great ACT party, and he has the courage to speak Truth to Power. New Zealand needs him to return it to Celtic Glory. Nevertheless I must state I have not Approached Mr Brougham to ascertain his Willingness to stand for ACT, an exercise I shall leave to the ACT Leadership.

Trusting that you will consider this Recommendation with all the Gravity it deserves,

L

15 Responses to “An Open Letter to the ACT Party Regarding Candidate Selection”

  1. Will de Cleene on July 12th, 2011 at 21:41

    Leave Brougham out of it. Four Queens beats four Knaves.

  2. Cactus Kate on July 12th, 2011 at 22:01

    Thank God, for a minute there I thought you had got wind of my upcoming appearance in Court room 2 Eastern Court HK Thursday up on charges of jaywalking.

    Will let you know how it goes.

  3. ak on July 12th, 2011 at 22:23

    Well done Lew Henry for only saying what we’re all thinking!!! well of course taniwha belong to the blody moaris too now dont they like everytihng alse, yeah right! how many ful blooded taniwha are left anyway? its BC gone mad! WAKE UP PEOPLE! at thise rate w

  4. maetl on July 13th, 2011 at 02:27

    Why bother reading Jamie Belich or Tony Simpson, or wrestling with Fairburn, when we can just trawl the interwebs for outré conspiracy theories about Celtic settlement? Much easier. Especially when such theories actively encourage readers NOT to study established NZ history, because it’s all a massive cover-up and denial of the real truth.

    It’s sad that so few NZers want to give the Polynesian civilization credit for their unsurpassed achievements in ocean navigation. Sad that so few NZers even admit that there WAS a Polynesian civilization. The notion that the Eurocentric enlightenment is not the sole civilization in world history still seems to shock, confuse, and offend an alarming number of supposedly educated people.

  5. Lew on July 13th, 2011 at 07:54

    To Chris Webster; we draw the line at death threats, however joking or veiled, so your comment has been removed. Try again.

    L

  6. Hugh on July 13th, 2011 at 09:39

    Maeti, most serious historians do not throw around terms like “civilization” any more.

  7. Chris Webster on July 13th, 2011 at 11:41

    On reflection – my comments could have been viewed as a ‘veiled’ threat though they were not intended as such.

    Your decision to remove is accepted and respected.

  8. Lew on July 13th, 2011 at 11:43

    Thanks, Chris.

    L

  9. maetl on July 13th, 2011 at 12:24

    Hugh… point taken, and you’re right. I don’t have a problem with the term when it’s descriptive, rather than normative though.

  10. Graeme Edgeler on July 13th, 2011 at 13:21

    we draw the line at death threats

    That’s where you draw the line? I’d like to think that things a fair way short of death threats would also be so frowned upon :-)

  11. Luc Hansen on July 14th, 2011 at 03:07

    Gee, I thought you could have included Cactus Kate in there somwhere. Perhaps as a wild card – or maybe a joker?

  12. Edward on July 14th, 2011 at 09:50

    Ha! Good sport, loving it. Muriel Newman is to archaeology, and logic, what oil is to water. As for Mr Brougham’s claims, well, he certainly is no expert.

  13. Scott on July 15th, 2011 at 02:49

    Good stuff Lew. One of the curious things about Ian Brougham, and also certain other believers in the ‘white tangata whenua’ nonsense, is the way they’ve incorporated Gavin Menzies’ pseudo-histories of the Chinese ‘discovery’ of most of the world in the 15th century into their patter. Menzies himself caused a stink a couple of years ago when he gave a lecture in the Waikato and claimed that Maori were the descendants of Melanesian ship-slaves who revolted against their Chinese masters, settled in New Zealand, and took Chinese concubines as their wives.

    While we’re on the subject of odd ‘explanations’ for the stories about taniwha, can I mention this essay for JPS by Simon Best:
    http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_97_1988/Volume_97%2C_No._3/Here_be_dragons%2C_by_S._Best%2C_p_239-260/p1?page=0&action=searchresult&target=
    Apparently all those taniwha were just Aussie crocs which swam the Tasman and died, exhausted, in our waters! Best is a serious scholar – he wrote a fascinating comparison of the pa of Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji for JPS back in the ’90s – so I don’t know how he came up with such a weird argument…

  14. Brooklyn on July 15th, 2011 at 22:47

    Never argue with bigots… never… but if could say just one thing to Ms Newman et al it would be “So What?” Because, in the end the treaty was still signed by Maori so I can’t really work out what it is they are trying to revise. At least David Irving managed to keep his story straight(ish)

  15. Jude on July 16th, 2011 at 11:42

    Enjoyed it Lew.

    These matters have been screaming out for a cumulative piss-take, and you’ve delivered.

    Keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: