THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM

September 3, 2026
, , , , , Feminism

By Ron Asher

Modern New Zealand is based on certain truths but also on an increasing number of lies, e.g. the Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” (no, it was a treaty of cession), before the arrival of the white man the Maoris led an easy and happy life (cannibalism, slavery, infanticide – especially of female babies – human sacrifice on the death of a chief and endless tribal wars in which tens of thousands of them were killed), multi-culturalism is “wonderful” (it is subversive of social cohesion, undermines the trust and safety of a homogenous society, and introduces unnecessary discord – Muslims v. Jews, Muslims v. Christians, Muslims v. Hindus), DoC’s lie that its 1080 poison “saves native birds” (it kills all creatures requiring oxygen to breathe, including native birds), Jacinda Ardern is “kind” (the cruellest P.M. ever as she so enthusiastically embraced abortion and drove people out of their jobs by her unnecessary “Covid mandates”), the Pfizer vaccine for Covid was “safe and effective” (it was neither), and some people are “trans-gender” (biologically impossible). The particular lie that will be dealt with in this article is that the socially destructive and unnatural doctrine of feminism is so wonderful that no one should be allowed to question it.

Feminism started in the later years of the 20th century by a gang of women academics (mostly lesbian) in universities in Massachusetts, a state long known for its narrow-mindedness since it was begun by the intolerant Puritans in 1620. Feminism had (and still has) nothing to do with raising the well-being of women in general. It is all about getting ever more highly paid jobs for “career women” at the expense of the hated male of the species.

Feminists like Hilary Clinton talk forever about breaking through “glass ceilings” to get top jobs as C.E.O.s etc. but never are they heard to take up the cudgels for the hundreds of millions of oppressed women in Islamic countries who are forced to wear ugly and uncomfortable clothing, who are allowed by Islam to be physically beaten by their husbands, and who have inferior rights over a wide area. These poor women just don’t count in the eyes of the greedy, man-hating lesbians who run the feminist agenda in the West.

Like all false doctrines feminism is based on various lies, the most basic of which is that men and women are interchangeable whereas in fact they are complimentary to each other and not interchangeable.

This modern and artificial “interchangeability” of men and women has not only created much confusion and unfair discrimination against men but it has also undermined the home and led to unnecessary social problems arising from women putting “career” ahead of the natural duties of motherhood and the home. Women bishops, women judges, women army generals and women naval captains are the more ridiculous of this new and unnatural phenomenon – all that neglect of home, husband and children just to be laughed at!

The ideal place for the mother of a young family is in the home and not in the workplace. Women who recognise this and give their time to their children are far more useful to society than those who are indoctrinated by the feminists into believing that they can have both children and a career when, in fact, too often they finish up doing neither very well, thus failing in the most important role of a woman, which is as a mother.

There are, of course, some genuine cases where a mother has to work either full-time or part-time to help pay the household bills but in other cases, where a husband is capable of earning for the family, it is neither necessary nor desirable for the mother of young children to work outside the home.

Too many of them have had their minds programmed by the ideology that one must have a “career” to feel fulfilled as a woman. This comes from the movement’s permanent lesbian leadership who, not having children themselves, are incapable of understanding the nature and duties of motherhood (or even of wifehood).

The women so indoctrinated are the victims of feminism. So too are the husbands and children. What husband would want to arrive home in the evening from work to a wife still pre-occupied and harassed with her own workplace issues and too tired to offer anything for dinner except takeaways rather than to one who has had the time to cook a nice meal and look her best with a kiss for the husband and an easy drink before dinner? And children too. They need discipline and boundaries and a lot of fun, and these are more likely to be received from a full-time mother than a part-time one.

Feminism is such an artificial and unnatural doctrine that it can be enforced only by massive intimidation. In New Zealand the instrument for this dictated thinking is all the ambitious, young female journalists who think they can change the world by their biased reporting and indoctrination. So, what is the harm of women journalists? The harm is the way that they all think the same way and, by embracing a narrow ideology such as feminism, are not representative of women in general.

We saw this recently in the matter of the former Labour M.P., Stuart Nash, who had been selected as a candidate for New Zealand First. He stated that the National M.P. for Napier, Katie Nimon, whom he was standing against, was “lazy” for taking parental leave. She had taken SIX MONTHS off from Parliament to look after her newly born son. In other words, the voters of Napier were more or less without an M.P. for one sixth of the term that she had undertaken to serve them at the last election.

Even though Stuart Nash is hardly a political giant and was standing for a small party that was (and is) unlikely to take the seat of Napier, the reaction of the feminist dominated media was hysterical in the extreme. TV1 News at Six, which has long since ceased to be a reliable and unbiased news service, devoted around half its time that night to a sustained “hate” campaign against Stuart Nash for stating what at first sight seems to be a truth.

National M.P. Nicola Grigg, who also had a baby when she was an M.P., screamed (maybe out of guilt): “There is absolutely no place for people like that [Nash] in our House of Representatives”. What about his right to free speech? Luxon waded in in his usual manner of trying to ingratiate himself with the Left wing media by stating that Nash owed Katie Nimon an apology. What for? Telling the truth?

The job of an electorate M.P. – as Katie Nimon is – is a demanding and responsible one, and one is entitled to question whether the mother of a newly born baby is a suitable one to be an M.P. She comes across as a very ambitious and calculating person and doesn’t seem to have grasped the truth that, while anybody can be an M.P., only she can be the mother of her baby and carry out that function, which is far more important than being an M.P.

The role of women in the short history of New Zealand has been hugely positive as they were the ones who introduced and upheld the civilising influences that created our society on these distant shores. “It was the women who….softened the rough edges of life and helped civilise pioneering society. As the battle for survival was won and the settlers began to establish a home, rather than just a shelter against the elements, then the role of the wife became increasingly important. She both civilised her physical surroundings and set the style of the new colonial society, imposing the conventions and niceties of European civilisation on frontier life. The achievement, carried out when life was still a constant battle against unfamiliar climates, hostile natives, physical hardships, loneliness, poverty and isolation, was of very real and lasting significance,” wrote Valerie Bethell in “The British Empire”. (Vol. V, P. 115)

The pioneer women were smarter than those later infected by feminism – especially in the timing of childbirth. Biologically speaking men and women are at the height of their sexual power at around the age of twenty-one while the optimum period for a woman to give birth is between the late teens and the late twenties. In the pioneer days that was when most women had the bulk of their children. In prioritising a “career” over having children, feminism persuades young women to defy the eternal rules of biology and to “put off” having children until the mid to late thirties by which time many women cannot conceive while others can’t find a mate because they have become so obsessed with their “careers” that they have become boring to men.

The women of to-day who have dodged the bullet of feminism are the lucky ones and the ones to be admired. The caring and thoughtful full-time mother is the highest and most admirable state that a woman can reach – far higher than that of Chief Justice or Prime Minister.

Multi-Culturalism Undermines Free Speech

August 27, 2026
, , , , , Freedom of Speech, Maori, Multi-culturalism

By John McLean

It is a well-known but sordid fact that Labour governments will always seize on a particular outrage committed by one or two persons as an excuse to clamp down on the rights of everybody, e.g. the Christchurch mosques’ massacre and the Bondi shooting in Sydney, both of which led to a frenzy of State authoritarianism in respect of gun ownership and free speech.

Within 72 hours of the Christchurch massacre the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced a ban on military style automatic firearms, some of their related parts and all high capacity magazines – exactly what farmers need to control pests in the countryside. This was policy on the hoof purely for public perception – to use the excitement and horror of the massacres to “justify” such an attack on the age-old right of farmers and others to have an effective gun.

Ardern allowed only two days for Parliament to hear submissions on this important restriction and then the Bill was passed with the help of a frightened and, as usual, worthless National Party. David Seymour, ACT’s sole M.P., was the only one to keep his head and vote against it.

Ardern tried to justify this and her clampdown on “hate speech” by telling yet another of her many lies – “It would make New Zealand safer”. To any would-be gunman the law of the land is irrelevant; there are always ways to purchase what is illegal, e.g. drugs. Although virtually ineffective, Ardern’s law did manage to achieve one object: it did inconvenience farmers who, like employers, landlords, evangelical Christians and self-employed business people, were very high on her “hate list” and are still very high on the Labour Party’s hate list.

Her government also tried to use the massacre to limit the individual’s right to free speech – a form of censorship that Ardern has devoted herself to ever since she was hounded out of office by the power of the anti-vaccine movement. In the words of her Justice Minister, Andrew Little, “In New Zealand our political and social culture has been very defensive of the rights of free speech. We err on the side of letting people say stuff”. And so we damned well should.

Speech did not cause the Christchurch massacre; an evil man with a gun did – and he wasn’t even a New Zealander. Speech does not kill and there is no justification in using a single criminal act as an excuse to limit the right of the free speech of everybody. Our centuries old right of free speech belongs to the people and not to some passing jacks-in-office such as Ardern and Andrew Little. If we’re not free to say what we think, we no longer live in a free society.

Labour politicians in Australia hate free speech every bit as much as their New Zealand counterparts as they showed in the aftermath of the Bondi shootings of fifteen people in 2025. In Canberra the Albanese government rushed in and passed within a matter of weeks an ill-thought out statute called The Combatting Anti-Semitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026. As in the Christchurch case it has nothing to do with making Australia safer since the two gunmen were Islamic immigrants whose ingrained hatred of Israel and Jews did not need to be further advanced by any “anti-Semitic” tract or booklet.

The real purpose of the Act seems to be to ban certain political parties which, by telling certain truths outside the Establishment lies, might take voters away from the two main parties (just as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is doing at present). Part IV of this sinister Act allows the government to prohibit certain organisations as “hate groups”. In other words, the law is being weaponised against any party whose arguments can’t be met by the Establishment. Just like in Germany where there are moves to ban the popular AFD party which is, in fact, the largest opposition group in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, where it holds 151 seats and is poised for greater things.

So, what sort of organisation in Australia is being targeted as a “hate” group so dangerous that it has to be destroyed by the law? The first target of the new statute is a party called the White Australia Party, described as “a right wing political party”. Oh dear! Can’t have that.

This party wants to limit immigration from the Third World so as to preserve Australia’s European population and heritage. Nothing wrong with that – a policy with enormous potential for disenchanted Australians who see every day – especially in Melbourne – more and more of their streets being taken over by Indians and other Asians. Furthermore, this “white Australia” policy was the very policy that Australia followed very rigidly for the first 187 years of its 238 year history (1788 to 1975). So, a policy that was acceptable to Australians for several generations and widely supported by them is now considered so dangerous by Albanese and his mafia that any groups advocating it must be BANNED.

On the other hand they have not used the legislation to ban any radical Islamic group of the type that provides background to certain violent Islamic criminals. As I said, the legislation is not about making Australia safer but about preventing potentially popular ideas from taking root and developing. The rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has frightened the Establishment (both Labour and Liberals) so much that they cannot risk anything like the White Australia party developing in a similar way. Just like when One Nation was taking off and so they imprisoned Pauline Hanson on false charges for ten weeks.

So much for the government in Canberra but the New South Wales state government was no less opportunistic in pushing through rushed laws to protect the Jewish community and put many thousands of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Jewish groups. It should be noted that the Labour Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Chris Minns, has long been groomed by Israel to do its dirty work abroad. In 2003 Israel gave him an all expenses paid trip to Israel on the Israel Ramham junket programme which aims to capture young Western politicians at an early stage and groom them to be a reliable asset for Israel and Jews in general.

In the immediate aftermath of the Bondi shootings Minns repaid all this care and attention by pushing through rushed laws, restricting the right of protest. This was aimed primarily at Palestinians who were periodically protesting against Israel’s genocide of the Arabs in the Gaza Strip. These rushed laws – in the name, of course, of “community safety” – were later struck down unanimously by the judges of the Court of Appeal as “unconstitutional”.

In defence of his war against free speech Chris Minns bleated: “We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multi-cultural country”. This is a most revealing comment as it admits that what flows from a multi-cultural society is a restriction on free speech in order to accommodate such an unnatural and dangerous phenomenon as “multi-culturalism”.

In the words of former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, “We always knew it; the idea of a multi-cultural society cannot succeed. It is doomed to failure from the start.” And the distinguished Canadian psychologist and author, Jordan Peterson, “Multi-culturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures. If you think you can import a multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both.”

Not one voter in Australia or New Zealand has ever been asked whether we want to share these two great countries that were built by British settlers with all sorts of riff raff from the Third World. Instead, this important decision to destroy traditional demographics was taken by arrogant and treasonable political parties such as Labour and National in New Zealand and Labour and the Liberals in Australia.

It is time for the ordinary people of Australia and New Zealand to take back control of our destinies once and for all by quitting the parties that have been responsible for this terrible treason. No wonder parties like the White Australia party have to be banned; it’s all part of the price of the unnatural and destructive multi-culturalism that has been forced on us by the permanent political elite.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON – Enemy of New Zealand?

August 16, 2026
, , , , , Maori, New Zealand Government, NZ Parliament, The National Party

By John McLean

Christopher Luxon might be a bit short on governing skills but when it comes to selfishness and lack of patriotism he seems to be right up there at the top – as shown by his reaction to not one but two challenges to his ineffectual leadership by National M.P.s in the last few months. A more honest and patriotic man would look beyond his own egotism and selfishness by considering the good of both the National Party and New Zealand. Since he became Prime Minister he has shown both his incompetence and his nastiness on several occasions.

When he was Leader of the Opposition the 1Law4All organisation printed a booklet entitled “Are We Being Conned By The Treaty Industry?”. It called for One Law For All New Zealanders and no special race-based legal privileges for those who are one-eighth or one-sixteenth (or whatever) Maori.

This was seen by the tribal elite as a threat to their ever growing power and so they kicked up a stir in the media. When asked about the booklet Luxon, in order to ingratiate himself with the Left wing media, damned it as “racist”. What? For advocating the same laws for everybody!!!!!! This was a straight out lie as nothing in the booklet was (or is) racist.

This instance of deceit and nastiness is not untypical of the man. As part of the Coalition agreement with ACT National was committed to supporting David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to its First Reading. After that, National would have the right to make up its own mind and, by our constitutional practice, that might have been expected to be after the hearing of public Submissions, which took place between the First Reading of the Bill and its Second Reading.

However, at the Waitangi circus in February, 2025, Luxon was “got at” by the thugs of the tribal elite and so immediately after returning from Waitangi he announced that National would not support the Bill at its Second Reading. By refusing to wait for what might have come out of the public Submissions to the Bill, he showed that cowardice is yet another one of his unpleasant characteristics.

In order to ingratiate himself further with the tribal elite and other enemies of a New Zealand where we would all have the same legal rights, Luxon said that there was “nothing at all” that he liked about this Bill – a Bill that was motivated by the noble and democratic principle of One Law For All, and that he ruled out the inclusion of such a measure in any future Coalition arrangements with ACT and NZ First. He hates the idea of all New Zealanders having equal rights and deserves in return the contempt of all New Zealanders who value democracy and equality.

It doesn’t take too many brains to realise that Luxon is leading the National Party to likely defeat in November. As that wise old owl, Peter Williams, recently stated on RCR, “The National Party is a shambles with a leader and senior M.P.s whose egos matter more than the good of the country.”

This downward path could have been rectified at either of the two recent leadership challenges but for Luxon’s selfishness in refusing to resign. He has no concern for the future of the country – just for his own personal position.

The thing is bigger than him or even the National Party itself as a Labour led government of Greens, TOP, and the Maori Party would be a fate worse than death. Little Hipkins wouldn’t last long as the neo-Marxist, Kieran McAnulty, appears to be just waiting in the wings to stick the knife into his leader’s back so that he and his fellow Marxist sympathisers would have carte blanche to steal our property and our rights and to undermine the economy. Just like Grant Robertson, Ardern and little Hipkins did in the last Labour government by so recklessly increasing borrowing to such heights that it is unlikely ever to be repaid, the interest becoming more and more a burden for future generations.

Luxon lacks a spine and the only times that his government has shown any courage have been when Winston Peters and David Seymour have provided the spine that otherwise would have been lacking. It is time for this utterly inadequate Prime Minister to put his country ahead of himself for a change. All he has to do is drive to Government House and tender his resignation. I am sure that there are thousands of people who would volunteer to be the chauffeur.

1 2 3 … 23
Copyright © 2023 Tross Publishing. All rights reserved.