For Our Freedom.
Freedom is too easily misunderstood and too easily taken for granted. If I could draw upon the wisdom of the past, others may call it a cliché, then I would say “we know not what we have until it is gone”. It distresses me greatly to see the kiwi become less the individual for which he claims renown, as I watch that integrity melt into an advancing state. Freedom is not a democratic society, a democratic society is merely the backdrop against which freedom may be secured.
The first requirement of freedom is self discipline. If we do not discipline ourselves, then we ask to be disciplined. If we do not defend the right to discipline our children, then we will have given away what our fore fathers fought so hard for. They left the socialist claws of Europe and travelled the world to find a place in which they could secure their freedom, that they might offer this to their children, and all we have to offer in return is an unforgivable indignity.
Freedom is not the responsibility of the state, it is the responsibility of the individual, each and every one of us.
If we fight for nothing but the satisfaction of our own selfishness, then we teach our children to do the same. Do they mean so little to us that we would sell them into slavery for a few gold coins. Have we become so apathetic that we no longer care for our own freedom let alone that of our children.
The future of our country can no longer survive on the religious and political authorities of the past. It’s success or failure lies in the hands of the individual, should he find righteousness and justice in his heart. I do not see that any change in this world has absolved us of the responsibility of defending our own freedom, and that must start with defending the freedom of our children.
I fear that the men of this country have lost their self respect and pride that they will allow section 59 to removed from our statues. The illusion of the institution has blinded them, they no longer realise that they are required to participate.
Well said Bevan.
Kiro and her cronies would have done well in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia!
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 30th January 2006 @ 4:25 pm
bang on brother. will be forwarding a link to this to everyone I know as it sums it up so well what is at stake.
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Mon 30th January 2006 @ 4:48 pm
I agree with everything to date on this subject, and hell, it was a good article.
I worry about the future of this country under the current regime and my main concern is that Helen’s Govt seems to carrying out its agenda in secret. Why are the media not posting major headlines about the repeal of Section 59?
I also sadly think there are now not enough real men left to fight..those of us who remain have become dejected and are almost slaves to the system. There are also too many men who just simply don’t know what the issues are and what is at stake here.
Comment by Morris Lindsay — Mon 30th January 2006 @ 11:14 pm
As a proud and well disciplined man who is also very left wing, I want to point out that our forefathers were socialist. There were no “socialist claws of Europe” when my ancestors came here. There was no decent welfare system in Britain at the time and no Unemployment benefit.
New Zealand was a Pioneer Nation of socialism and welfare. For a while there it was the best country in the world and had free health and education.
Read more about the history of this great country if you want to know what being a man in New Zealand is traditionally about.
Comment by livus — Sat 4th February 2006 @ 9:26 pm
I well remember the unions in Britain regularly causing havoc for the general public with thier strike actions in places where the productivity was diabolically pathetic because they wouldn’t agree to productive practises being put in place – end result -> allot of businesses outperformed by competition from elsewhere -> e.g. Korean steel and shipbuilding industry, Japanese auto industry to name but 2.
The Socialist claws of Europe indeed.
And that’s before factoring in soviet Europe with it’s gulags (well described in all thier horror in Solzenitzkin’s ‘Cancer ward’).
One other point.
New Zealand has NEVER had free health and education.
It’s ALWAYS been paid for by the taxpayer (duh!)
Those who don’t know thier history are condemned to repeat it.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 5th February 2006 @ 7:27 am
My 5th form economics teacher taught me that there was no such thing as a free lunch which equally applies to education and healthcare Livus. Anyone else who believes otherwise is most likely mildly delusional.
Comment by MarkL — Tue 7th February 2006 @ 9:24 am
Say what you like, but it doesn’t change my point which is that New Zealand was traditionally more socialist than Europe, and those of our forefathers who left Europe (which wasn’t all of them, unless you’re a white supremacist) were not trying to get away from socialism.
Stephen, I hate to break it to you but Russia was not communist in 1840 – what you’re talking about came about 80 years later. Good on you for reading Solzhenitzyn though.
Comment by Livus — Tue 7th February 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Livus,
The United Soviet Socialist Republic was indeed ruled by Communists under the tutelage of one Joseph Stalin in 1948.
This era was vividly described in Solzenytzyn’s ‘Cancer Ward’ which features Kostoglotov, the main character, a man unfairly exiled under Stalinist Communism.
I’m not sure where you got 1840 from!
Comment by Stephen — Wed 8th February 2006 @ 1:04 am
I think confusion arises here because the “first ships” (some of our forefathers) arrived in NZ in the 1840’s and at that time there were no “gulags in Europe”. The socialists were a powerful and recognised force in Europe in the 1840’s, and as stated they did not acquire power until much later. A lot of us will look back and say, yes NZ was a great place, and perhaps it looked socialist from the outside because it was a fair society. Reality is though it wasn’t socialism that built this country – it was many good people who did many good things, and to me that is where there is a big difference.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 8th February 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Thanks Bevan,
you’re right – that is exactly what I was talking about. I agree, there have been many good people of many ethnicities who have helped build NZ as a modern nation. I think our political backgrounds need not divide us on the important issue of Rights.
Comment by livus — Fri 10th February 2006 @ 6:08 pm
This is a good debate to read. I reckon we’re moving off topic though. I believe our freedom is in serious jeopardy. It’s just happening slowly enough that it’s just an annoying yet acceptable, continuous move to enforce uncle helengrads secret feminist agenda come to fruition. Which it pretty much has. The longer it’s left, the harder it will be to fix.
Comment by Moose — Fri 10th February 2006 @ 11:40 pm
Excellent piece, Bevan.
As one person noted, a number of our influential politicians and politcal appointees would have excelled under Hitler and Stalin.
And, gulags aside, New Zealand may appear socialist, but our “free” education and health are paid for by the hard work and resultant taxes of the people who are productively employed here. Compare this to what Aunty Helen, Cold-Fish Cullen, Cowardly Cunliffe or Duplicitous Dunne have never contributed.
And then factor in that the New Zealand Prime Minister is paid more per capita than George W Bush or Tony Blair….go figure?
Sounds very much like there is already a proletariat in place and humming happily along.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Sun 12th February 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Why is it OK to hit children if its not OK to hit adults?
I know there are good men out there who are not violent but why does this site seem to support all males freedom.
When will the good men stand up and say “Hey you violent beep stop it you are slandering our good image!!!”
I do not support imoral and/or violent behaviour from either sex be it towards other adults or children!
Comment by Johanna — Fri 24th February 2006 @ 7:48 am
It’s OK BECAUSE they are children and it’s only violence if it’s not violence if it’s simply a smack.
Duh.
Go figure.
You do yourself no favours by claiming this site seems to support all male freedoms either.
Look allot closer Johanna.
BTW iMMoral is the correct spelling form.
Here’s the definition given by Cambridge online dictionary-
immoral (adjective)
not within society’s standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour; morally wrong:
Now square that with the fact that recent pollling has shown 90% + public support for smacking.
Have a good day Sista.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 24th February 2006 @ 2:49 pm
ADENDUM
My apology for a typing error.
I meant to write – it’s only violence if it’s beyond reasonable force. It’s not violence if it’s simply a smack.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 24th February 2006 @ 2:53 pm
BTW it’s “a lot” not “allot”
and it’s their not thier
Comment by dave — Tue 28th February 2006 @ 3:38 am
also, “in soviet Europe with it’s gulags” would sound better with “its”
attack the issues, not the spelling, on this site
Comment by dave — Tue 28th February 2006 @ 3:41 am
Thanks for the smart editing dave.
It’s apparent both Johanna and I could brush up in that area.
Watta wunnaful tred dis iz.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 28th February 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Well, this article is really the freshest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and anxiously look forward to your next updates. Saying thank you will not be adequate, for the phenomenal lucidity in your writing. I’ll immediately subscribe to your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business efforts!
Comment by commercial factoring — Wed 23rd December 2009 @ 4:32 pm
This is spam, a form of internet virus
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 25th December 2009 @ 7:48 am