Phillip O'Sullivans New Book









Rhetorical Governance: Twelve Ways the Politics of Supposed Good Intentions Fails its Followers Always.

And everyone else as well.

Ooops, now I'm a criminal in Norway.

1. The highest of high taxes.

Socialist governments always end up taxing the poor more through the mechanisms of confiscation, denial of services, denial of freedom and through inflation and the printing of money. What the Obama administration falsely called 'quantitative easing' which was nothing less than running the printing presses night and day; therefore increasing the illusion of wealth in his nine years of office as much as the previous five or six presidents had done throughout their entire careers. Without improving the jobs economy or the financial basis of the manufacturing economy at all. This is Mugabe territory. It is an illusion. The easiest sugarcoated way to destroy any economy. No socialist government ever fails to have recourse to this mechanism. Locking the society in a time warp of perpetual irrelevance. Meaning that when a more sensible government wakes up it has to catch up with a decades equivalent of mismanagement. Socialist governments are a terrifying time where everything flows backward. No one is better off and everyone is worse off except for one elite group as shown by the election recently of a socialist city council that immediately increase the rates of the people who did not vote for them as punishment and paid themselves an immediate increase in salary. This is typical of corrupt socialist behaviour. All diehard socialists are so corrupt there is not a single exception in the real history of actual socialist government. The mute graves of over four hundred million of its victims bear testimony to that in the twentieth century alone.

At the national level we have an impending socialist populist government backing onto an entire history of socialist governments in this country whereby the real tax rate has increased above 67%.  GST, ACC, Income, Rates, plus other compulsory fees and charges or extractions. That is, that for every $100 the average worker earns by the sweat of his brow.  Or the hard yards of thinking his way through a pile of unnecessary and soul destroying  paperwork (their favourite economic philosopher being Keynes who said 'make work did not matter if you dug a hole and filled it in again'; welcome to Gulag thinking!'). Exactly 2/3 of his money taken away immediately for income tax, property taxes or rates, goods and services or sales taxes, withholding taxes, compulsory accident insurance, and other compulsory fees, charges, taxes, subscriptions and imposts. Mostly to pay for things directly opposed to his real interests like feminist driven policy captured by the female privileged elite.

Yep, this is what an actual feminist did to her son because of HER feelings about anti-feminism.

Many women have aborted children because they were boys without having to tell either the father or anyone; this thing will redound. She should be prosecuted. What if a man did this; note how he would not be proud of it and show everyone; Feminism empowers infanticide, murder and abortion with its death culture. It can have only one cultural reply to stop it. An outright total ban on feminism as a hate crime. Then we would have no need for masculists. That is the only legitimate way to get rid of us.

  Plainly when so much of your money is confiscated by the state in the name of serving you then what does remain to you and what manner of life can you have? When all you have left in your own hand after the state has taken most of it, is the pittance of the one third remaining. That is the very Marxist bogey of 'alienation & subsistence' is it not. Done entirely by your very own government that you most probably voted for. More fool you. They are laughing all the way to the bank. With almost all your money. It is lucky if any man ever receives any benefit from it. Most pensions are captured by women as they live longer. Most of the health vote is given to women constantly going to the doctor. And today most education money is given to unfair female teachers who will deliberately mark boys down for feminist ideology reasons. Yes, that is right; they will mark your son down a grade because he is a boy. On your money (as men pay the most tax). Can we not see how biased, bigotted and unfair that is? While pointing these injustices out is called our 'Hate Crime' even by New Zealand Judges. Surely with all this unjust suppression of mens true and natural rights an explosion of well justified fury is coming. Not that I advocate that mind- just to observe how inevitable it must become sometime.


Out of that one third remaining $30, (of the hundred) or only $300 out of the average weekly income $1000 (this is the vast majority of your average worker mind you) – this is not some weird fringe group, this is the life of the ordinary person who pays and pays, and pays, under a socialist government. Out of that remaining $300 you are supposed to pay your mortgage, your few food items, your travel expenses and clothing for the workplace for the employment you supposedly "enjoy". What little remains. No wonder you are in debt. Try sending your bills along to the MP, or to IRD, or to the city Council. Perhaps the Mayor will fork out on your behalf? Why would one bother to work at all? And to whom does it go apart from mostly to the bureaucrats and the politicians. It goes to support poverty continuing as poverty, and unwell behaviour continuing as unwell behaviour, it goes to support lassitude laziness and uselessness. How can such a state function? Of course with your two thirds money- that's a whole whack of money they have taken from you – and all glory goes to the state; in state project this, on state project that, all paid for on two thirds full of your suckers wage, or on your salary: is this not theft on a grand scale? All revolutions are founded on the expropriation of the means of production in order supposedly to save you from alienation and from living a subsistence lifestyle. That is classic Marxism. As you see it has now very well turned itself into something else. Something, like scholasticism, sophistry, fashion, culture, postmodernisn that can 'prove' anything, be anything, speak anything- like contemporary politics- say anything, promise anything, deliver anything is worse than useless. It is not a tool for thinking. It is a tool of lies. It attached itself to you like propaganda. Repeat it often enough it becomes the truth (Goebbels putting this saying into the mouths of Jews). This is how advertising works. Let the buyer beware. Marxists criticise western consumerism for this as 'their' political champions are particularly lousy at making cellphones and cameras etc. Yet they too always fail to apply this truism: for that is what it is (A seemingly smart observation/reflection by Goebbels who was after all the 'workers socialist party' propaganda minister). To give you the full context. Advertising and propaganda are the same. Propaganda is advertising for a political position, policy, party or ideology. What else can we expect. A sort of licence to tell bigger fibs, selective facts without their entire context and even more enormously inflated lies. Resulting in what we see all around-we get 'more' yet we still seem deeper in debt.

Do you see how this operates? They take almost all the money from you.  Expropriation: you, of course, do not deserve to have it. Very little is left to you.  You are just the muggins who provides it. To pay for the other extraction side of the economy; the false flim-flam 'jobs' given to utterly useless feminists. What a gigantic scam it all is. Real work is needed to be done. Men do it. They pay heavy taxes; more heavy than is really needed. These imposts sap your saps- remove all will, urge and desire from you- dumbing you down- then they give this hard earned money of yours to easy earned safe-cushy jobs, inside, in the city, with subsidized cafeteria (you paid for) a state vehicle- for free-you paid for again (How does that old dungha of yours outside now look to you eh? Theirs is better of course- bought by two thirds of YOUR money do not forget.) You are supporting two whole families more than your own all on those lovely generous taxes you pay so conveniently out of your own pocket. Yet when you require something yourself of state generosity- they give you the run-around right? The teachers sneer at you, the court official is brutal, the tax man unyielding, the feminist (lesbian) librarian all snooty and arrogant. Eh? You have no basis in which to object because it threatens your employment which is possibly and probably in a government agency or as a beneficiary of some kind of that system itself. You cannot criticise for you cannot afford to criticise's. An unexamined life however is not worth living. This we learn from Greek philosophy of the Western tradition. The state then can do as is likes.  You being in the state avails you not; that is if you are a man that has temporally fallen afoul of it. The State operatives can act like bullies discriminating against men in a feminist state as they will and do and have a long inglorious track record in doing so putting more men in prison and a feminist society than there are women though they claim equality. I call this a Matriarchy- paid for by men for the entire unjustified benefit of women. They did not do their part; they did not have enough children. Yet they demand everything from you the man though they hold two thirds of all your money in Government levies as if you are already guilty of some vast unstated crime. That of being a man. Equality for all the sugar and spice things. Oh yes,  more of those! But you boys must work outside, outside of the city, outside of the state apparatus and all its freebies, goodies and baubles; paid by your money, outside in the cold rain and snow of the real economy. Where we can screw you outrageously. Economically, in all manners of speaking. Yet while accusing you eyeing of up our daughters. To keep you in your place. You men are second-class citizens.   The smallest infringement against the feminist elite class will be severely punished by extracting all your blood. Now you know why Goths roam the street. They are not joking.         
Hilary Clinton in Jacindas borrowed teeth. Hilary had hers out for the hustings.
They do say in politics a lot of horse trading goes on....

What remain to the workers in our so-called workers paradise is a debt laden subsistence that comes with its own levels of cultural and socialist poverty. You are meant to feel gratefull for being allowed to enjoy some of your own money back into your hands- such as tax breaks for families with children. Yet it is your own money originally. They only returned to you some of it because their criminal theft of it in the first place for incompetent governance would all the more quickly become obvious and therefore fundamentally breakdown all aspects of our political systems. No, I caution speedy gradualism. A distinctly graded and stepped off retreat from too high a state intervention- back down into far more useful waters as we shall see if you follow these ideas fully out in considering their obsevational outlooks and forlorn as currently here foreseen in current consequences. Must we look on in horror as this unfolds for the new Government? Or shall we all act with resiliant perspicacity; sagely and wisely. My counsel; to move forward by going back. We MUST retreat from ECONOMICALLY unsustainable positions. The Taxes are FAR too high! All things considered. As we look at here. The reader and I. Please read on further and think. For Gods sake and Aotearoa New Zealands sake: THINK! Before it is too too late. Otherwise this Governments popularity will shrivel within weeks if not day. And is then the Governor General to receive another visit requesting the formation of a National Government in Six months with cross-bench elements of the three weaker parties? It could happen.

We do have a form of tri-cameral government in this country- the permanent government of the public service house of socialism; unelected, self-serving and irremovable.The local bodies which when in power under a central government that is also socialist becomes a fearsome Middle House of corrupt tyranny of fascist rent controls, protectionism and banning of all individual efforts at political amelioration. Think of mayor Daley and Tammany Hall. It effectively bans or censors all dissident criticism, questioning or correction. It is a real tyranny. Censoring library books, lifestyles, religion (street preachers; just like the worker socialist Hitler), hopes and dreams of anything departing from the moronic socialist programme. It bans anything independent, free or otherwise in competition ideologically. Free thinking stops dead with these dogmatic idiots.

Phillip O'Sullivan on YouTube showing his theory of population economics- the theory to replace a non-functioning socialist & static classical capitalist (Who Funds the Schools of Economics?) which is the only theory to gaurantee success under socialism, capitalism, anarchism, imperialism, colonialist, military or religious forms of Government.  In other words all Governments have recourse to my economics in a crisis- as if paying obesience to some prosperous-supplier Deity (El Shaddai perhaps?) then once the crisis passes revert to their own fallible little systems of operation. The series of six videos are called 'Open Letter to the New Zealand Prime Minister' and were initially addressed to Prime Minister John Key.



2. Privileging perverts and criminals and paedophiles and pederasts.

Socialist governments in the West are a form of criminalised creepy communism. They are a species of international Jewish politics. Think of the kibbutz and the hype and nationalism of Israel and that fascist brand of socialism. A so-called workers socialist party. Yet in essence an elitist comradie of co-conspirators; the capture for the party coffers the West all available sources of revenue gathering. So that a community initiative will be announced of a sufficient level of funding be captured by the passing through several hands on its way to the party coffers while small enough not for the electorate or the compliant left-wing feminist media to be bothered in any requisite oversight. Therefore many of its project are completely legitimate and have nothing to do with serving the community or the public whatsoever but of serving only their continuity in office the next round of voting. This we see everywhere in New Zealand particularly in a socialist city.
Creepy form of communist tyranny is full of word's that camouflage their thieving intentions.

In communist Russia of the Soviet era the first appointments to high office were directly the result of the theory that material circumstances and economic conditions with the only thing that made a criminal criminal. So they elected as the high court supreme Justice a former murderer straight out of jail. And these thugs then proceeded to rule Russia as the regime public servants. Why anybody after this alone would want to have anything at all to do with socialism I have no idea. So presumably with this is the ideologically ground we must assume that all socialists are criminal. For economic conditions cannot be the excuse and socialism must be nearly camouflage and disguise for the outrageous theft of the well-being and the communal society of actual people, exclusively for their own use. Socialist governments are always the new Czar. Always. Without exception. Let's compare an actual liberal reforms, Tzar; with the entirety of the communist regimes run. Under his reform government and individual raised enough money to finance an entire railroad from Moscow to Vladivostok. One of the greatest of human achievements in his century. Bar none. The Leninist revolution was a child's birthday party and a cakewalk in comparison. Over the 70 year run of the Soviet union and its bloodthirsty regime even a road had not been constructed from Moscow to Vladivostok. In their rule they were not able to match the achievements of one Imperial Czar. Millions starved to death. 100 million people directly died at the hands of the state. All of it deliberate policy. Almost all of them Christians. Defenseless people who had not raised a single hand arm finger or any equipment of any kind against the state. They had just gone about their business. How cruel and pointless can you be. All socialists are criminals in waiting.

And wait they do. Sneakily in Government service, in academia, in the schools; protected by powerful unions.

Unsueable, secret, never acknowledging fault, never suffering corrections like the people- shamefully working in the shadows.
Superior beings of low cunning. In the Soviet Union for instance 16 people were arrested after a spate of murders lasting years. Six were hung. Eventually the serial killer was caught: they thought no psychopaths could exist in a benign Soviet State. Of course it was admitted he could be traced back to all of them. You see how absolutely dangerous to unleash a state apparatus that investigates your sexuality, your finances, your employment record, your bank account details, your internet searches and virtually everything about you. For the most of the National Party past it has been a Michael Joseph Savage type socialist party- not exactly a 'right-wing' party at all. Even in Winstons Party there is more a whiff of regionalism than there is of Nationalism. The Greens are possibly more 'Nationalist' - think off-shore Island sanctuaries, whales, stopping projects, fart taxes, dribbly showers, mercury vapour 'poisoner' plumes coming out of the poverty inducing $34 energy bulbs that never ever last the long distance- exclusively limiting their damage to Aotearoa.


In colonial times our colonial governments had low liberating tax with vigorous, robust and extremely good results for Pioneer people. The tax rate at most was around 10%. This was for imported item on things like glass and machinery. There were no income taxes whatsoever. The same with Lincoln's presidency- war tax was raised at 3% to finance the civil war then raging. He never sought it. When the war was paid for the tax was removed. No one paid any income tax. This was the time in America was built. The people set to work because all the money they earn belonged entirely to them, earning your wages and keeping all of it is an excellent motivator for advancement of any society. All states with high taxes are static because their only purpose with a socialist government is to protect the purity and correctness of their socialist dogma. California is currently falling apart. Major companies are leaving because of high taxes.  Winston bleats on about the low NZ dollar as if it were not alarming. So why does everyone want a strong dollar? Going out as cheap exports lowers the perception of the country- it becomes a race to the bottom; in such a perception the quest for quality goes out the window. And the perception even of our wine and other products determined in other years becomes of bargain seeking only. A low price banana republic. A country with no class. 

 The Soviets had no other measure of their success or failure. Longevity of life plummeted in the Soviet Union it was always 10 or 15 years below that of anything obtained in the West. Socialism at every level is a deadly dull and conformist political religion. Most times it is literally deadly to life.  Killing its citizens with impunity. Look at the cult of Helen Clark. A bad government that drove many small businesses to the wall. With over-regulation the ability of a man to extend his highly tax squeezed income by building things himself do it yourself industry was extremely limited for the first time. In the socialist regime way of thinking everyone is to be subsumed and subjugated to the state.  In a feminist regime which Hillary Clinton would have ushered in the back of Obama and which we have now – in New Zealand of all places- may the world take note; our extremely left-wing Prime Minister Jacinda grind the faces of the male gender person into the mud of history. We wait only the revolt of the centre against this awesomely dreadful outcome. We can safely predict the investor community will flee this as if from the site of a poisonous disease that ruins all that it touches. We entered the Cuba zone, welcome,  Oh Venezuela, poverty, we embrace you! How can it be otherwise. We have fallen into the clutches of evil ways and times.


 3. Marked Bias Against Boys by Boyless Lesbian Mothers.

All independent studies made of female teachers in schools of all types and classes and times and places in recent decades have shown that above all male teachers are fairer to boys or girls in the classroom. However female teachers have shown consistently throughout all the studies in pedagogy that female teachers always mark boys down by 5%, 10% or even 15% from that of girls. These are fair scientifically designed comparative studies by independent bodies with no axes to grind. They are not teachers biased organisations. Nor are they government funded bodies preloaded to give the preselected and expected politically correct answer. Just based on the facts. Independent observers both male and female. Independent criteria. Scientifically sound methodology and all of these types of studies support this view. Not based on 'feelings' in dodgy self-elected surveys. Imagine how then a programmatic feminist lesbian teacher who herself has no boy's, boyless mothers,  with girls only in her brood; how biased then if she in her pre-judgements-for that is what prejudice is; she is already showing her colours by her outward personal and political allegiances; how then can we expect her to be anything but extremely and fiercely prejudiced in that classroom against all the boys in that classroom just because they are male! I strongly suggest that in any focused studies that are independent and scientifically designed on this class of woman teacher a lesbian feminist teacher or a lesbian female teacher teaching boys that she would be remarkably prejudiced against male children and should have nothing whatever to do with the teaching of little boys, infant boys, young boys or or any young male student of whatever rage at high school or at University.

Phillip O'Sullivan the title and theme is a little dated. Today the figure is 500,000 plus New Zealand Kiwi Kids 'removed' forever from the classroom of Kiwi life; to have been exactly replaced by half a million migrants who struggle to fit in Kiwi life. There must be some link between the two exactly similar figures and elsewhere I shall write about it. Not yet, there are far more urgent mistakes being made by the New Government already.

Why then is this highly prejudicial group having anything to do with education even as a curricular or a study were a theoretical pursuit whatsoever I think the buyers of the remarkable bias in the horrible nasty evil creditors forbids them prater- naturally from anything that exercises their feminism as a deliberate hate crime against male children male boys and masculine gendered people of all colours stripes opinion and tendency or gender or sexuality. These people in particular should have nothing whatsoever to do with the male sex or the male gender or male persons in the educational function whatsoever it is a perfectly ordinary natural masculist cry in the light of this fact that all these independent studies have have found scientifically these opinions and produces to be so marked in such ordinary females that in extraordinary females we should expect much more extraordinary prejudice against the male gender and the male forms of sexuality at any level of the educational enterprise. They should be barred from teaching across genders even at University. For the violation of one's human rights should not ending any way trump academic merely academic rights or academic freedom. There should be no academic freedom tolerable whatsoever for such expected predictable and apparently inherit hatred in the hate crime known as feminism on our universities. In other words these people are intellectual criminal's of the deepest dye and should be removed from the educational sector forthwith. They should be forbidden as a group – especially boyless mothers and programmatic feminists and especially Lesbians without compensation and with complete and utter contempt and extreme prejudice. Feminism is a hate crime in these persons.

Women and mothers and fathers of boys and sons should demand a cleaning out of such bigotted persons from our schools.


Socialists claim to running of our schools should restore all male teachers in them.

Why would parents settle for anything less in an age where there is so much educational concern for the dumbing down of learning. Men are good abstract and logical thinkers. Let men take over the best role in education. Our children demand the best.

Men neither markedly mark boys or girls up or down; their results are generally objective.

Ordinary female teachers mark boys down say 5% compared to girls.
Female teachers who have sons probably do better.
Female teachers who have both a boy and a girl slightly better than the ordinary female teacher.
While feminist mothers who are deeply imbued with feminist dogma probably mark boys down say 7% with girls slightly above at say 4%- a differential from expectation/speculation of a 11% difference between ‘their’ class of boys and girls. A feminist mother with only daughters in her brood may be expected to either mark up girls or mark down boys; in either cases or of combinations giving a variation of 15% to as much as 20%. Is this acceptable? These are all questions education authorities should have more proven answers to than mine. I am only asking and frameworking questions. I think these are absolutely important questions. We could lead the world in this. In the more serious cases of boyless mothers who are lesbians in our classrooms of whatever age I would expect differentials of pedagogic care and teaching to vary by as much as 25% on a regular basis. Is this at all good enough at all? At any level?
And if we consider the extreme cases of Boyless mothers living entirely in a girly bubble alone or with a female partner, together with their daughters, living thus in a completely obsessive ‘female world’; applying personally- as so many women do-under the rubric ‘the personal is the political’-having possibly killed a boy foetus along the way in order to maintain the girly bubble effect-and having long ago got rid of the father barely containing herself from scowling at all men in meetings and such like, attending conferences where there are only women colleagues there (no man dare shows his face) how can we but expect but a 30%-to-35% differential running exactly against boys favour in her classrooms; regularly sending boys to the headmaster with vicious complaints and for heavy punishments. Is this anomaly of a criminal level of danger to our boy children. And she gets a fresh new crop of our dear youngsters every year and has been blithely getting away with this molestation and abuse of little boys brains, understanding and educational outlook for decades; and we are to do nothing? This is happening in all our schools?
In conclusion can not the only political solution to this be the complete replacement of all female teachers with really skilled, unbiased and fairer men teachers at every level of our education system. To do anything less would be criminal dereliction of duty to all our children from five through to twenty five at University. Male teachers are always better teachers it seems.


 4.  Whatever happened to holding all women as in common?

Socialists have no principles. Therefore they are making it up as they go along. Their principle as I have said is self serving power for its own sake. As California, Cleveland, Greymouth, Chicago, Cuba and Venuzuela show socialism is the fastest highway to bankruptcy, oppression, unemployment, poverty, time warps, back ward policies and outright economic destruction ever invented. You cannot pin them down to anything. If they have a principle it is 'that is not real socialism' for nothing is.

Marx dreamed of a Workers paradise locked into a fuedal vision of the Lord in his manor surrounded by a bevy of female socialites acting as his harem. The workers rented their land from Commissar Marx and Paid him the Laird fee of a tenth of your produce, plus your daughters (or sons) every time he felt the olde urge. Or wanted to send your son out to die for his dispute with another bloodthirsty Laird.

On that basis all our Governments are much more extreme than that because they demand a rent cum tax of 67% in real tax rates for their profit. The socialistic political class never loses. The phantom feminist tits get all the money while you men who do all the real outside work get all the tat. So glorious is the revolutionary history outlining these things. In the Peasants revolt of 1381 the dispute was on the increase of taxes of a mere few days worth of wages wheras our governments charge us in total more than 240 days out of 365 in taxes already. I voted for Key years ago on his promise of a tax reduction- for all as I believed, thinking that he had seen the good sense of this light. Now we face much increases as our Juvenile Queen deigns to weigh us down with. Although in 1381 terms we are well overdue for a most fearsome set of corrections to this hideous notion.

 A wide spectrum of rural society, including many local artisans and village officials, rose up in protest, burning court records and opening the local gaols. The rebels sought a reduction in taxation, an end to the system of unfree labour known as serfdom and the removal of the King's senior officials and law courts. I would call this the revolt of the centre. It is where the real political energy of complaint is these days and our political know-nothings, our politicians, our writers and columnists, our other artists of course are far away from any of even the slightest inkling of any of these things.

The revolt of Catalonia, of Pegida, of Brexit is just the merest shade of a beginning of these things. It will all come here. Why would ANYONE work at all for one third pay! Above all that is the issue of all issues. Masculist good sense demands the immediate reduction of the civil service by 90%! Nothing else will save us.

Interventionist Government is way too costly.

The rewards to those who make the effort are well nigh invisible.

 But it gets worse as you will see in the next section.


Phillip O'Sullivan 'Feminism Standing Alongside the Social Structures That Men Built'- our false accusers are then depicted in sketchy form.

DANG! There goes that cute Emma Watson,Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Bell Hooks view I had of feminism. Talk about a dark Satanic past.


 ...In the massive spirit of these ...ahem, Ladies...above ....

Jacinda Wants to GIVE you stuff!

 Like Obama and the Clintons our newest Prime Minister wants to reward you for having voted for her.

To me she is a fairly extreme left-wing SJW (Social Justice Warrior) Labour Party Socialist for her policies.

Living Wage

Living wage is an attempt to raise the lowest level of income of the poorest paid work's and student work's and young workers and perhaps rural workers or migrant workers fresh in from overseas to a level that is called a living wage. Fair enough you say? Sounds good, what's the problem? How could anyone have any difficulty with that. The cost of living is rising surely we need to pay people for so they can afford to go to work. And to live reasonably okay off their own wages or salary or earnings. What could be a better idea than that? Sounds good to me!

This type of idea comes up every so often and has been around at least five years or so. And on the face of it it does sound like a good idea it sounds kind and benevolent and friendly he even useful. We all know that eventually the money is spent so it must be good for businesses somehow at least eventually. If people have more money they will spend more money. Young people have it hard these days. They have a student loan to pay for not like we had. Things cost more, the rents are rising, there are not so many jobs and many students have up to 4 jobs each- they are bending more time running around chasing these little one day jobs than they are studying after their lectures. All true. And also very sad. I do not entirely envy their position. The aim of such granting is of extra money is laudable. Please believe me I do think on the face of it it is a good idea. Some mechanism for the relief of the student loan in particular seems pertinent and obvious.
In the old days of Michael Joseph Savage and the far lower overall, compounded and real tax rate I would agree with you utterly and every detail and with every passion of the sentiment. However something happens when you go over a 50% real tax rate. Something pernicious which detracts from the good sentiment. And it is this. All things considered- all costs and consequences allowed for: after a 50% real tax rate you begin to lose; get given something and more is taken away in the end they knew ostensibly are supposed to receive. We government gift has authority. It should do as it says. It should be something like an outright gift. A real freebie. That in all senses is actually and consequentially FREE. But is it? Are there consequences with a free gift? Is there anything wrong with it? Well yes there is and it's far more drastic than you could possibly imagine. Dear Jacinda please rethink not the sentiment but the delivery mechanism of the sentiment.

 What happens at the 50% Mark?


Well at the 50% mark this situation is somewhat neutral – though for other reasons I must recall in a later paragraph than here – the neutral position probably really ends at 40% or so. So one of first up look at the basis for a neutral economic effect I plumbed for the 50% mark in my thinking. But the neutral point which may float somewhat in a better consideration is somewhere else, probably earlier. Basically the more the government probes itself and inserts itself into the main economic process by whatever means quite apart from taxation (havoc results- having opposite result from intended) but taxation is the main indicator here.

Here my kind of thinking arises from the sort of bulking up generalising attitude I have from wide reading and my population economy idea of economic thinking. Some of this was triggered by Dr Paul Ormerod's call the death of economics. I was thinking well if it is dead why did he persist with it in later chapters? Why didn't he kill it off and speculate about what we can do to replace it. There were only several chapters in his book that discussed this and that was very satisfying to me. It seemed to fit intuitively with what was happening in government economies all around us. For that is what they are, government economies. Government economies are taxation economies, government economies are monetarist economies – government economies are internal and external and deal with the results of policy are the value all the dollar the inputs and recognition is an responses of the markets in the overseas worldwide international investor communities. I am aware of things like the new silk road. Hand and acutely aware of the Chinese probing out into the South China Sea and their interaction with Fiji and the Philippines. Both island nations having deep harbours of great interest to their Navy. We have deep water harbours. Meaning that heavily laden transports and commercial shipping can berth there in sheltered and protected waters. China currently has very full oil and is looking to be a dual world power for a long time to come. Plans have very quickly become Imperial, imperious and world confident shall we say. Let us not allow them to out think us. They were very much like to explore the southern ocean oilfields. And if the flat Earth theory is a multi variant possibility – then those oilfields and that ocean out there is at least three or four times larger than ever thought before. Except for the United Nations map and for the Nuremberg Court map emblazoned on the final court documents cover. We must see that the Chinese have reached a point of membership or ambition to come to the knowledge Captain Cook first accurately explored. Captain Cook used New Zealand as the jumping off point for his expedition to circumnavigate the Antarctica. New Zealand is a great jumping off point to explore the southern oceans as well. There could be great contention for this region in the future over that. Therefore it is extremely pertinent that we pursue most aggressively our own interests in the region. Economically speaking New Zealand itself is therefore potentially one of the world's wealthiest countries for hundreds of years to come. Mainly in servicing the setup and installation costs borne by such a great empire as China or any resurgent America (which despite trump seems extremely unlikely). There are other contenders of course, Indonesia or India may be such. China clearly has long term plans for the region for itself. It would mean breaking the Western alliance. Would they let us go? There are many complex matters to consider.

For this we must not make any mistakes in the meantime. Mistakes basic taxation and economics would be extremely foolish and signal exactly the wrong kind of message. We must remain efficient effective strong and powerful ourselves in the face of such contending options.
There is another source of wealth we must develop as if we were in a crisis. For we are in a crisis presentation. We're not in a Commonwealth any more, English advisers will not guide our future. We must seek the strength and the ideas from within our cell as Kiwis in New Zealand and face of vigourous future vigourously powerfully and strongly. The human face of capitalism smacks of a weakening. Only discipline people can present a strong vigourous economy for ourselves and the world. Any weakening of this will make a scene like marshmallow softies to these contending options.

Also by believing our own rhetoric – as basic an intellectual error as ever there was one- could see us lose the very social gains in the meantime by an inflationary kickback from not considering the resultant costs and distribution pass on's in warehousing and retailing that will absolutely limit the effect to the taxpayer and the voter of the intended benefice. The gift could disappoint via inflation.

The main cause of which Is the high real tax rate. At the neutral point this would not be noticeable. Though unfortunately we've gone far beyond that. It might be because we've gone almost twice as far the on the neutral point is strictly speaking in absolute economical limit for what you're attempting to do. Let's jump forward at this point and say that the real tax rate is 100%. You intend to give the punter the taxpayer or the voter a 20% pay increase so his $1000 a week becomes $1200. But it is immediately up by the 100% real tax rate. An amusing almost inability to describe this occurs here in doesn't really matter if it disappears at the rate of 100% totally disappearing for $1000 or $1200; no it doesn't – a pure case of purely illustration of pointlessness. Kind of like what happens to the sucker or the muggins whose somehow agreed to let his government tax and 100% in return for a free flat a free job and possibly free wife or something. Who the hell would want a stock standard government issued wife? She would be like army rations. Unappealing. The flat would be like everyone else's underclothes all uniform issued would be like everyone else's and we would look all look like people and Mao T'se Tongs cultural revolution. The same, the same, all dreadfully the same. Exactly the same. All of us poor little Rewi Ali's all over again.

Millions of us like clones, Thinking the same being the same because conformity meat less trouble obtaining the continuous flow of the freebies rather than the cash income that we would now utterly dependent upon. Obviously a control freak government would be very pleased with this result. The people would be docile and uncomplaining. All dissidents would be shot because they would stick out like sore thumbs- they would seem so weird when everybody was the same. Naturally any deviation would then appear weird and stray and inexplicable. It would be impossible to explicate it. Lacking reasons or explanation these individuals would appear alien and rebellious to the revolution of sameness. This is exactly the condition the old Communist China. And at 67% obviously we are fairly nearly there. No wonder masculist thinking or any independent thinking appears strange and inexplicable to the people. There is an literally 67% conformity to the current government ideologically a matter what shade it is because exactly 67% of us depend on the 67% taxation for our normal literal existential living requirements; like food and clothing and funding and jobs and pensions and benefits and such like. Who wants to rock the boat. He must be weird. Weirder than the homosexuals were thought to be. What a strange thing to be different when everybody has ceased talking about conformity – the original old hippie battle cry. What a strange outcome after all these years. 1968 is dead. Long live the revolution whatever that is.


It would be dreadful. We are all conformity nuts now. All the groups saying to each other that global warming denial must be banned and that those who to deny the Holocaust must be banned from speaking- like David Irving was by the president of the New Zealand Jewish society. This kind of thing has a curious effect that we knew of in the hippy days. If you banned marijuana everyone wanted to smoke it is an act of rebellion and did. Yet the same people want to ban you being a man thinking man thoughts like this or that of the other thing. Actually sending people to jail for words that are in the dictionary. You can say obscene words all you like and nothing happens. You can say let's kill the Prime Minister as they said of John Key. Left-wingers said this kind of thing openly about John Key. But to say anything that somehow offends somebody but there is no way you know it's an open ended list of words which can be all of the 500,000 or more words there are in the English language any one of them can be considered offensive any one of million different combination giving one and almost infinite possibility in words of causing offence to some one person. How can this idiotic concept have ever got off the ground. It is a wonder we can barely communicate with each other any more if virtually almost anything you say can be considered illegal. It is as if they have banned every word in the English language and every combination of every possible configuration of those words in the English language in potentia. Introducing feelings legislation must be the maddest baddest stupidest craziest silliest idea ever thought of. It brings the law into disrepute. It makes the courts look totally ridiculous. It makes all governments which insist on this sort of rubbish universally evil. As being cast outright into an impossible role. That of interpreting almost all thing and almost anything at all everything if possible as being a potential crime.

It is why crimes must be prescriptive not open ended. They must dare to close down on physical things. First of all because harm is first of all most felt when it is physical.
We are in short heading for Communism by stealth- and curiously even lefties CANNOT want that.

Modern lefties want homosexuality and feminism; Old style Soviet Marxists would shoot both of them. Without feeling in the slightest squeamish about it.
Nor does ecology thinking get a hearing in the old communist world. Capitalism was always liberal and tolerant; Christians were satisfied that the laws were on the books; they were seldom used. Only egregious DISPLAYS of blatant homosexuality were acted upon. Like Oscar Wilde. Mostly it was left upon the table. What happened under the table was another thing. But notice once LGBT are in power- no forgiveness; all is the brutal thrusting of their vile laws down the normal majorities throats. With real claims and legal impositions affecting everyone. Leave us in peace. If you have laws do not enact them. Let them only lie upon the table inactive. Do not quel the natural energies of the people by supposed fashionable impingements-give us our freedom. Respect the majority.

 Say you have a desire to give someone a wage increase for no reason; no economic reason that is. Just an increase.

A student has $500 a week for pay. This is too little for high end studies. So living wage increases this to $600. But is paying by some way the full average 'real tax rate' of 67%. Thus two thirds goes to the Government pretty well directly. She keeps one third. Alright. Seemingly well and good. Look in the account- there it is -transaction recorded. What could be plainer. Gain to the student. Yes. So far. But there is more. More to consider that is. I have found most people stop right there. Money in account. Sum paid, transaction to the student. Done deal. We can do this. A done deal complete. Next! A government of ACTION. Wonderful! Did you like that? No!

Because most people stop there- what I call first order of thinking.

That is it. Stop there just as described, right at that point because they think it is finished. Promise kept and all that sort of thing. At least in that scenario.

Yet there is more- which is what I call second order of thinking. Because there is more. Which here is what I shall call -consequences (in other scenarios other 'second order steps may'  get called other things- what they are called doesn't matter) - consequences that may lead onto a third order and so on- basically all higher subsequent 'entailments' of effect/affect if need be- or serial sequences subsequent to the first. Most socialist thinkers appear to stop there that I have met- even Helen Clarks former advisor. I have not ever been impressed by their grasp of things- rather the reverse. So there is this second order in our scenario.

The consequences can spread out. And they do here. The student employee buys things. The people she buys things from have people too on living wage. The government takes its cut. Things are looking good. Receipts are up so the economy is responding well to this indirect 'stimulus' it thinks. But is the economy being stimulated by this at all? First real question. A little doubt begins to cloud our mind. The government knows nothing of this doubt. Receipts are indeed up- and fairly straight away too. Government thinks things are hunki dorey, oki dokey. All the signals are positive. The shop has to increase prices though. To recover costs on wages for living wage workers. The student frequents places where both she and other students work on these wages. Things appear flush. Someone remarks that the government seems to get back more than they keep. Hell! The Government gets more than we do on the deal! They get two thirds but we get only one third. The shop has to raise prices soon after. For the wage bill has shot up. No productivity increases have occured. So they raise the price. 'Have to' he tells his employee customers. He has to allow for payment of the governments two thirds and the students one third. So naturally it is increased by the full three thirds and a little bit. The little bit is more as the amounts handled are bigger, more insurance in case of theft- the amounts increase his anxiety just a little more for the business so he wants a reward for his stress etc.... In the next pay period all the prices are up for everything nearly in that neighbourhood. The student has to pay in the increases three times what he receives in the hand. He has lost out fully by appearing to receive only half in buying power than what she had been led to expect by the entry in her bank book. She was a little disappointed. In effect by such mechanisms her money goes less further all the time until she deliberately stops buying and starts saving. The savings rate however barely keeps pace with inflation. Yet the Government tends to miss all that. Their receipts appear up. Until the enforced slowdown in expenditure by the student employee contributes to the overall slowdown in the economy. This takes a little time.

So far this is an honest account and Government responses of printing more money are not indulged. The economic affect however is one of disappointment. the Student employee expects a change not small change. In effect the student is worse off. Because the 67% taxes work not only on the increase portion but on the turtles all the way down too. The government gets 67% of everything, the student experiences only ever 33% percent of their wage and instinctively or intuitively feels/knows she is being as if 'cheated' out of her own fair effort. The shop owner has to risk more and when the slowdown occurs works harder to make the same relative 'spending power' money. Over time the tax receipts are down also.  A cruel or stupid government increases taxes. Grinding their voter more and accusing the shop of withholding money or such. The shop goes out of business faster. Receipts are down more rapidly. The student gives up her studies and commits suicide. Sad result of the death culture too. Death breeds death. As in Mr Zdenek Hanzlik case. Sometimes Governments can be foolish. I am wondering about that smirk on Prime Minister Bill English' face. He smiled as Ian Wedde once said in a poem 'as if he knew something you did not' - maybe this is it. Wise handling of these things would forestall his soon comeback. I think he thinks you do not know these things and have missed the smaller scenario details and their second order consequences. I know some Labour people. Like their heart just not an admirer of their thinking.

He is thinking you'll muff it.

On exactly these things -lack of second order thinking. Partly I do to.

Printing money is a temptation. Don't.

 Slowly starve the greedy cities. No business puts money into a non-performing enterprise. Put money into the regions like Southland. Where money is being made. Make, yes make the new unemployed go to Southland to pick up their benefits and apply for jobs. Get your best WINZ staff down there to sign them up. They have to collect it there. Travel tickets only etc. Bobs your Uncle new workers! Old ones would grizzle and object. Invest in profitable ventures like Warren Buffet; do not flog any dead horses; bury them! Be ruthless. It is cruel to be kind. Send the most attractive solo mums down there six months later- the newer ones on similar basis. Build hostels near work camps etc. Jobsites and so on. Think like Machiavelli not like a f**king socialist! More like the Art of War than Hilary bloody Clinton the loser. More like Stalin than icepick brain Trotsky. Be cunning in your kindness.

Plan on preparing the country for the return of biggest ever oil. Talk only to the market players in oil- the buzz will circulate. Above all ignore the cities; put on your best frock etc and talk talk talk- just don't say anything. promise nothing quotable- when the money flows into the regions the effect will be spectacular. Small money makes bigger impact in regions, well put big money into regions- harbours ready for oil rig construction- those big oceans require big stuff- really big stuff- we are tallkinfg trillions here- theyt are out looking for maga trillions NOT billions- thats OLD thinking. TRILLIONS; TRILLIONS-wealth beyond our wildest dreams. Oil rig islands tethered to the sea floor as big as Cities, As big as suburbs- as big as anything ever built- only a hundred times bigger. So big that when you come over the hill and see Dunedin. You'll see a huge floating drum dwarfing the entire city. A trillion dollar rig. A large as a Cityscape. Tethered to the ocean depths. It is only one kilometre down- nothing to these new monsters. Starve the bloody cities and do it!  Think of our cut on that having it take up the entire basin. South Island closed to all other sea traffic. Sold out entire to these biggies. Sucks to the lousy opposition. That mad glassy eyed mercury vapour plume. She is poisoning our complete future. What do you think we were put here for?

 How Does It Work in Practice? Multiplier effected also.

Equal Pay


In the Light of the real Tax Rate


What Is the REAL TAX RATE?


First, some stories to set the scene


NOW-Tell Me the Details




Intuition is not always Right.


Rhetoric Derpends on First Order Thinking; Not on more Complex (But Still Comprehendable) Thinking.


How then to do what We Intend to Do?

Higher Real Productivity

Do not just announce false 'productivity' 'gains' as real productivity

What is productivity?



Ahhh! There's the Rub.


You Have to Become a Conservative.


Conservatives Conserve.


Kings Establish


Phillip O'Sullivan is probably one of the few living New Zealanders who has lived abroad for six months on his own money amoung the most lethal Marxist Military Regime in Asia at the time. Surviving shakedowns, shadowed by Security Officers, and airport detainments along the way. Despite this and fundamentally differing in developing his political and economic ideas he remained fairly sympathetic to the Myanmar Government and its aims.


What do you think?

Send us feedback!