The New Zealand Herald does a hit job on Dawkins

March 4, 2023 • 11:00 am

Richard Dawkins made a short visit to New Zealand last week, during which he went after the concept of Mātauranga Māori (MM)—the indigenous “way of knowing”—as a supposed replacement for science. (The government has decreed that MM be taught as coequal to science in secondary-school classrooms, although this “way of knowing is a melange of practical knowledge, religion, traditional stories, morality, and superstition.) I posted about Dawkins’s visit here, noting that he’d written a “diary piece” in the Spectator that was critical of MM as science (though not as anthropology or sociology).

I knew this would cause a kerfuffle, and, sure enough, the New Zealand Herald, the country’s biggest newspaper, put out a hit piece on Dawkins. Click below to read it; if it’s paywalled you can read it archived here.

The piece first describes what Dawkins said in his Spectator piece, not neglecting to mention that Elon Musk issued a brief tweet seconding Richard’s thoughts. When you read the piece, notice the dry, almost sarcastic way that Dawkins’s views are reported—in a manner guaranteed to irritate the woke. He even mentioned the giant flightless moas which were, of course, hunted to extinction by the Māori. That’s almost taboo to say, though it’s true. (Richard didn’t mention that they also destroyed much of the North and South Island’s forest by burning and agriculture. Some “stewards of the environment”!)

Where the knife goes into Dawkins is when the paper calls for comment only on one person: Dr. Tara McAllister, a Kiwi (and Māori) freshwater ecologist whose research career  has largely morphed into a series of papers attacking the racism and white supremacy of Kiwi science and trying to gain scientific equity for MM. In fact, McAllister won a research award from New Zealand’s Royal Society largely for an incendiary paper called “50 reasons why there are no Māori in your science department.” Although she says the article was “somewhat cheeky”, it is in fact dead serious, basically accusing the whole New Zealand academic establishment—and the seven Auckland Uni professors who, in the infamous Listener letter, said that MM was not equivalent to science—of being riddled with racism.  Here are the first eight reasons (the people named in #1 are the signers of the Listener letter):


UPDATE:  McAllister actually won the award for a paper that’s just as misguided, “Why isn’t my professor Māori?“, which details the “inequities” in universities and blames them on racism. Here’s a table from that paper (and remember, it got a prize for being a research paper):


I’m sorry, but the Māori are not victims: the government is turning education inside out trying to give indigenous people more research money , positions, and power, and people like McAllister are furthering this enterprise by claiming that, contrary to facts, they are all victims. (Yes, they were once discriminated against by “colonists”, but now they’re the most lauded group in the country.) It’s not wrong to say that McAllister is making her career by playing the “racist” card to gain more power for MM.  And shame once again on New Zealand’s Royal Society for giving her an award for such a vile, divisive, and inaccurate paper.

At any rate, McAllister is the only Kiwi scientist quoted about what Dawkins said in the Spectator piece, and everything she says is negative. So much for getting different points of view! (And yes, they exist, though most Kiwis who oppose the government’s police censor themselves lest they lose their jobs.)

McAllister criticizes Dawkins for his lack of expertise in MM and, of course, for being a racist. Her quotes take up half the article, and remember, this paper represents New Zealand’s most mainstream media. Here’s the article’s second half:

Dr Tara McAllister, whose research has sought to address the under-representation of indigenous scholars in academia, responded to Dawkins’ column.

“It is boring, embarrassing, inaccurate and full of racist tropes,” she told the Herald.

“It is clear Richard Dawkins has no expertise on mātauranga.”

She said Dawkins’ comments were damaging and – like the public letter from the University of Auckland professors – “function to embolden other racist scientists in Aotearoa”.

“Dawkins’ comments are, however, a great example of how clearly white supremacy is ingrained in Western sciences globally, and how colonising scientists continue to attempt to undermine the global resurgence of indigenous knowledge, which I will incorporate into my teaching and research,” she said.


Advertise with NZME.

“It is abundantly clear that Dawkins knows nothing about mātauranga Māori.

“We have plenty of experts in mātauranga, like Rereata Makiha, Rangi Matamua and Ocean Mercier. Richard Dawkins is clearly not one of them. He has no relevancy here in Aotearoa.”

McAllister said there was “a very long history” of mātauranga Māori being excluded and marginalised in Aotearoa since colonisation.

“I believe that its incorporation into the curriculum, in principle, is an important step in the right direction,” she said.

Notice her claim that Dawkins and the signers of the Listener letter were racists and colonizers, that Dawkins can’t criticize MM as science because he knows nothing about it (believe me, you don’t have to be an expert to see that it’s by no means coequal to science), that all criticism of MM is “racist” (it isn’t; read Dawkins’s piece, for he says nothing racist), and that MM should be incorporated into the curriculum, certainly as science. If the last bit is what she truly feels, then she knows LESS about MM than Dawkins does. Part of MM involves empirical knowledge, but most of it has nothing to do with what we think of as modern science.

Four things are clear to me from reading this article and from following the government’s woke path in New Zealand

1.) Scientists there are fighting a losing battle, largely because they are prevented from speaking out by fear of losing their jobs (see Richard’s Spectator piece). Yet despite this, I get at least one or two emails a day from Kiwi scientists objecting to the takeover of academia and science by MM.

2.) The indigenization of Kiwi academics is being helped along and promoted by the mainstream media who crank out biased pieces like this.

3.) The fear of Kiwi scientists and other academics to speak out on this issue—and a frank discussion really is needed—is driven by their fear of being called “racists”.. And nobody is better at wielding the “racist” and “white supremacist” trope than the prize-winning Dr. McAllister.

4.) New Zealand’s Royal Society remains a joke. Imagine giving a “research prize” to McAllister for her promotion of MM as science, especially the victimization narrative in her “50 reasons” paper.

60 thoughts on “The New Zealand Herald does a hit job on Dawkins

    1. Jerry, I hear the concerns but it’s difficult to hear you pronounce generalizations like “the Māori are not victims” that don’t take into account the full picture. It’s never as simple as we would all like to believe. There are historical wrongs that have been committed and sometimes overcorrection can be justified. It’s not as simplistic as it seems to be on reading some of the articles here that rail against the “woke” and overuse stereotypes and catch phrases. I fear this website has become overly political and overbearing in tone and, I fear, blind to its own right leaning politicisation. The comments are becoming an echo chamber.
      I agree that the promotion of non-evidenced based thinking shouldn’t be put on equal footing but it’s a mistake to think that there are no wrongs to be corrected and that racism does not still have victims in New Zealand. It’s something we should all focus on correcting and one can only wish that indigenous peoples were able to achieve what they have in NZ in the United States.

      1. I have said many times (as I believe I did in this post) that historically the Maori were mistreated and they still are held back by the historical racism. What I deny is that they are suffering greatly from PRESENT and STRUCTURAL racism. In fact, they have more affirmative action than any group in NZ. Of course there’s still racism, as there is in the U.S., but it’s not structural, as Dr. McAllister so vehemently maintains.

        As far as “overcorrection can be justified”, nope, not in the case of MM being taught as science in the schools. I vehemently oppose that; it’s not an “overcorrection” of past wrongs but will in fact harm all Maori and non-Maori children.

        I have not removed any comments submitted to this site, so at least this thread is not an echo chamber. But I suggest that if you don’t like the tenor of this site, JUST DON’T READ IT.

  1. What pernicious nonsense. The only “science” mentioned is the reference to navigation in her paper.

    And once again, the Powers That Be are invoking the god Inclusion. This brings up memories of our experiences of being the only kid not invited to the birthday party, which has nothing to do with evaluating whether or not MM is a form of science.

    At issue, as usual, is the definition. In this case its for “science.”

    “This is how WE do science.”

    No, it’s not. Science consists of methods that eliminate bias as much as possible, which involves trying to convince those scientists who don’t agree with your findings. It’s universal knowledge, not separate perspectives.

  2. I see that McAllister calls Dawkins racist, but provides no examples to back up that nasty, and likely libellous, assertion. His remarks about the ubiquitous use of Māori words in NZ publications are quoted, together with his remarks about the prevalence of the low number of speakers of the language, but aren’t challenged in the article so presumably are close to the truth? I’m sure she would have enjoyed correcting him if he was in error.

    1. The article contains no refutations of any of the specific points that Dawkins made, not even a refutation of the assertion that only 5% of Maori speak then language, which should be low hanging fruit… unless it’s true.

      1. the assertion that only 5% of Maori speak then language

        I wonder … Checking Wiki, I see that the prevalence of Scottish Galeic speakers in Scotland is estimated at 1.1% (with hints of a recent upturn – the current census may reach 2%). Welsh is put at 17.8% (in Wales, excluding Argentina); Irish Gaelic 20~ 30% ; Cornish 0.1~0.6%, depending on how you measure it ; and Breton at 10~15%.
        5% of the whole population would be a mid-performing language preservation effort ; 5% of the Maori population (however that number is measured) would OTOH be a pretty poor sign for the language surviving.
        Any Kiwis interested to substantiate (or refute) these estimates for the Maori (and general NZ) populations?

    2. Māori language statistics are somewhat inconsistent, because of different definitions and methodologies. Here’s the lede of a Newshub report from October 2020.

      Te reo Māori… is only proficiently spoken by around one in 100 New Zealanders. Another 2.7 percent are able to hold a basic conversation, according to census figures – all up that’s around 185,000 people.

  3. You don’t need to be an expert in astrology to know that it’s not valid or comparable to astrophysics.

    You don’t need to be an expert in creationism to know that it’s not valid or comparable to evolutionary biology.

    You don’t need to be an expert in Biblical exegesis to know that Genesis is not valid as being comparable to geology and history.

    You don’t need to be an expert in homoeopathy to know that it is not valid or comparable to medicine.

    You don’t need to be an expert in the Maori equivalents of the above to know that they’re not comparable to science.

    And saying so is not “racist” if you’d same exactly the same about white, European folk mythology, which indeed I just did.

      1. Common fallacies aught to be taught, don’t you think, in elementary school. Fallacies infect the mainstream media, politics, and it’s all over social media and people are unable to recognize it. Actually, fallacies as part of critical thinking should be an essential part of anyone’s toolkit from childhood on. It would probably improve society more than almost anything else.

  4. For some reason sociology 101 people can’t see the difference of ‘something’ and ‘the sociology of that something’. Science is not a racist colonizer construct, it is a method that can be used for good or wrong or indifferent reasons by different people, It can be used to enslave people and it can be used to free slaves.

    Anyway, ‘Maori folklore is science because you’re a racist’ is not a rebuttal to Dawkins.
    It is just more sociology 101 nonsense.

    1. “‘Maori folklore is science because you’re a racist’ is not a rebuttal to Dawkins.”

      The ad hominem fallacy is a standard line of attack by the wokists. It has no substance to it, nothing that can be debated. An article like the one discussed here almost writes itself; indeed I don’t doubt ChatGPT could have written it. I for one would love to see such a computer-generated article submitted to the NZ Herald, to see whether anyone else can see the joke.

  5. There are significant questions about how to recognize early science as science. We can recognize Mesopotamian astronomy in part because of their having made a significant astronomical discovery, that the sightings of Venus in the early morning are sightings of the same celestial object as sightings in the evening of what one might have thought was a different celestial object. This depended on written records. Early proto-science can’t get very far if it is totally dependent on tradition and memory. The astronomical discovery stands. It is not part of “Western science”, but part of science. We calculate the period of Venus more accurately, but we share the concept of Venus having a calculable period.

    1. The most racist part about this debacle is that Auckland is 28% Asian and only 11% Maori, yet the ideologues are content to slap on maori stuff willy-nilly into the education sector without slapping on Asian stuff.

      Really, when Auckland Asian taxpayers and ratepayers such as me contribute easily 30% of govt funding for education in Auckland, why shouldn’t there also be Matauranga Mahabharata and Matauranga Mencius in the same curriculum? It’s not up to White people to spend our Asian money on maori initiatives unless there is a population-proportionate amount spent on our traditions. [ We’ll dispense with the Matuaranga Mao.]

      Let’s have a comparison in Keyaurastan NZ primary and secondary schools, between Maori navigational skills versus the Chinese navigational skills in the fleets of Chinese Muslim eunuch admiral Zheng He, with his ocean-going junks that had a complement of 2000+ men in the largest ships.
      Let’s teach Hindu numerals! Oh, do we already?

  6. ” …how clearly white supremacy is ingrained in Western sciences globally, and how colonising scientists continue to attempt to undermine the global resurgence of indigenous knowledge, which I will incorporate into my teaching and research,” she said.”
    We of course invite Tara McAllister to incorporate indigenous knowledge into the working of her cellphone, her mode of transportation, and her medical treatment in case of illness.

    McAllister’s message does raise more serious implications. One is the fact that she received a “research” award for the screed entitled “50 reasons why there are no Māori in your science department.” That she considers this “research” is no surprise, but that the Royal Society does is part of the trend to insert what the US calls DEI into everything, including the definition of “research”. And what, beside the culture of complaint, will this DEI-infused “research” of our futue consist of? McAllister, and apparently the NZ educational establishment, have the answer: the “resurgence of indigenous knowledge”. Good luck with that. We can look forward to MM in engineering, shamanism and Nattuvaidyam in medical schools, renewed attention to cupping and leeching, and space exploration based on indigenous knowledge of the stars. Good luck with all of that.

    1. Hey John,
      I was about to reply to this peculiar diatribe against ” racist ” western intellectual and scientific traditions, but you said what I was thinking much better! I share theses discussions with my students and I will use your incisive parody to great advantage. I teach critical thinking in the visual arts ( Drawing and Studio Art). Jim

  7. Having been an anthropologist for about 50 years I have come to know a multitude of “world views.” One could just as easily compel the christian world to follow the words of the Bible to guide their work. Or the Indian, or the Muslim or the Inuit, of every culture of the world. Richard Dawkins may irritate New Zealanders, but coping with the world as it is requires modern science. Electricity?, Mechanized vehicles -like cars and airplanes?, and don’t forget modern medicine. Don’t get sick. Michael Scullin

    1. “… may irritate New Zealanders…”

      Irritate some New Zealanders, please! Or perhaps that should be ‘many’: it’s difficult to be certain which word to use when news media – having accepted money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund to promote Māori language, ‘the’ Māori world view, a radical reinterpretation of our most publicised founding document, and staffed by ideologically-committed reporters – tend to ignore or misrepresent anyone and anything which might challenge their biases.

  8. Since those who might steer this thing are either (a) unrepentant revolutionaries, or (b) wisely staying in shelter, it appears the only way this can play out is that after some years there will be unmistakable declining performance in New Zealand science. That will inspire an unfortunate political shift in a more conservative direction, and that will be the only way to navigate the country out of this mess.

  9. Well it’s pretty clear what the woke veiw on MM is but it is also clear the Herald is not interested on a serious discussion.
    Being right leaning (the Herald) I’m sceptical of their motivation. There are historical reasons for this stance. All the same, it let the NZ public down by not engaging in a full public dialogue.
    The yelling Dr McAllister does not seem to have a clue what science is and how it proceeds. For her benefit it has no tribe, ideology,…facts, truths reveal themselves to any who look and inquire.
    When you commit to racism to defeat racism we’re nowhere.

    1. When you commit to racism to defeat racism we’re nowhere.

      Quite true. But they’re in power. And that’s what this is about.

    1. Fits in with ‘educate yourself’, ‘It’s not my job to educate you’ and other such frequently regurgitated mush at Ph******la, all of which is used when they have no real argument to make against you.
      And I see that McAllister (not a wildly traditional Maori name) lards her writings with dollops of Maori words, as if she is a speaker—I understand they did not develop written language being too busy making amazing scientific discoveries. It would appear to be the hallmark of pretentious virtue in New Zealand.

  10. Many thanks to our host for continuing to provide a forum where sane discussion of this stuff is possible. One small correction to the above – the award to Dr McAllister was not for the deranged “50 reasons” rant but for this similar sounding paper, bad in its own way, with it’s talk of “universities as strongholds of settler-colonial privilege”:

    Unfortunately, any trivial inaccuracy tends to be seized on the ungodly as a reason to totally discount any criticism.

    Dr McAllister is no slouch in the abuse department. I see she has now protected her twitter account, but I remember this from last year as particularly memorable:
    “Fuck Dick Dawkins and why the fuck are we asking him about his reckons on Mātauranga Māori when he is a racist.”

      1. The corrected paper makes quite interesting reading in that while it gives an interesting breakdown of the number, academic position and proportions of Maōri at the various universities its main argument is that because the proportion of Maōri staff has remained constant at about 5% at a time when greater numbers of Maōri doctoral students are graduating than there must be discrimination. What the paper is silent on is the subjects being taken by these doctoral students or the number and discipline of academic vacancies that have become available over the last decade or so (the period the paper covers). If discrimination is going to be alleged there needs to be, at an absolute minimum, some evidence of vacancies arising where there were suitably qualified Maōri candidates who were not appointed. Of course many other factors such as the quality of the PhD and the detailed subject matter would also need to be taken into consideration

    1. I wonder if she would say that to his face. I bet she wouldn’t dare. Mind you, if she did, I’d love to hear his response.

      She reminds me of Sir Peter Medawar’s observation, in his devastating review of Teilhard de Chardin’s ‘The Phenomenon of Man’ that “the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought”. Although, in her case, I’m not sure about the “well-developed literary and scholarly tastes” bit.

      1. I love that review. I often think of it when trying to read the convoluted prose of some of the apologists for MM.

        “Yet the greater part of it, I shall show, is nonsense, tricked out with a variety of metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself. The Phenomenon of Man cannot be read without a feeling of suffocation, a gasping and flailing around for sense. There is an argument in it, to be sure — a feeble argument, abominably expressed — and this I shall expound in due course; but consider first the style, because it is the style that creates the illusion of content, and which is a cause as well as merely a symptom of Teilhard’s alarming apocalyptic seizures.”

        And this seems particularly relevant to Dr McAllister:

        “Laymen firmly believe that scientists are one species of person. They are not to know that different branches of science require very different aptitudes and degrees of skill for their prosecution. Teilhard practised an intellectually unexacting kind of science in which he achieved a moderate proficiency. He has no grasp of what makes a logical argument or of what makes for proof. He does not even preserve the common decencies of scientific writing, though his book is professedly a scientific treatise.”

  11. Wikipedia points out that:

    “Constituted under the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 (amended in 2012), the Society exists to:

    Foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including (without limitation): (i) The promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology; and (ii) The advancement of science and technology education,

    Encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science and technology,

    Provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists,

    Provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community,

    Do all other lawful things which the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand”.

    Looks to me like the RSNZ is failing to deliver many of its required objectives. Perhaps it should be wound up. Or perhaps, at least, the ‘Royal’ bit of its title should be removed. It’s certainly an embarrassment – or should be – to its parent organisation.

  12. “Notice her claim that Dawkins and the signers of the Listener letter were racists and colonizers, that Dawkins can’t criticize MM as science because he knows nothing about it ”

    And yet the sociologist who knows nothing about science or the scientific method lectures scientists about what science is.

    1. It’s the Dunning Kruger effect at its finest. She has an advanced degree, so by damn she’s willing to go head to head with anyone about any subject whatever, the more well-known the better. I’m pretty sure she got a thrill out of writing her paper.

      It’s a case of paying for an education and getting a piece of paper instead.

  13. Gotta say it again; posted a couple months ago the quote from the Papa of the MM movement, who said the knowledge had been lost, been destroyed over generations, by whiteman. Sir whoever (can’t be arsed to look it up right now) was in full rant, mostly justified I suppose, about English colonialism and the state of his people. So, then, to resurrect what had been destroyed, he and 4 or 5 other sages (unnamed) conferred and decided what MM now is! Sir MM said it himself. Yet delusional pundits rant on about MM science because of Polynesian navigational skills (let’s not speculate on how many ancient navigators, like the world over, died in their efforts). My view is, if you don’t have a written language, you simply can’t have science. As Sir MM makes pretty clear, a bunch of ancient Maori men conferred and decided what MM is today. And of course, there were never any disagreements in Maori or Polynesian societies. Everyone was completely clear and unanimous throughout their entire culture about exactly what MM includes and excludes. And they will use missionary romanization and dictionaries (I have a few) and inflict this bunch of interesting cultural/anthropological lore on all the other NZ folk.

  14. Ugh.

    It’s like McAllister was unleashed purely to prove Dawkins’ (and the other scientists) point.

  15. Using the same argument:
    The European Enlightenment took a wrong turning by developing a pan European scientific method.
    Each country and region should have had a different science which incorporated the insights of astrologers, shamen and soothsayers.

  16. The NZ Labour Party is in power yes, but this post was our hosts prediction that he, R Dawkins would get roasted. As he did and the Hearld picked one noisy woke and let her have all the say. Now we know no one wants to talk but OTOH that could be because no one who could or wanted to were asked.
    The NZ Herald wants to divide not inform.
    That is what I wanted to comment about.

  17. I don’t think it’s fair, even as a way to point out hypocrisy, to criticize Maori for burning forests to clear land for agriculture. Everyone confronted with forest who wants to farm has to get rid of the trees somehow, including us. We cleared the Carolinian forest in Southern Ontario to farm it, as Americans did in the Corn Belt. The Maori knew full well what they were doing: you can’t eat a forest and cutting down a tree with a stone axe is bloody hard work.

    I’m quite willing to say that Stone Age people lived in harmony with their environment only because they lacked iron and coal technology, not because of mystical environmental stewardship. Everyone knows that’s just climate-change propaganda and an excuse to vandalize work camps at pipelines and terrorize the workers to extract rents in a protection racket. But criticizing their ancestors for burning forests in order to grow food that they couldn’t have grown otherwise is an indictment that just seems spiteful.

    1. It is true that all our ancestors cleared land and drove species to extinction. But I think the point is that the ones trying to dilute science with MM are also beatifying the Maori as “stewards of the land”.

      1. Moriori or Moas, I know a few that are not exactly impressed by the MM ‘stewardship’.
        MM Stewardship? The less attractive lower parts of my already not attractive anatomy there. I can’t believe anybody considers these ideas (basically dreck) seriously.

  18. Depressing commentary released today by David Farrar:

    Basically, there is a points system for funding university research in New Zealand (the Performance Based Research Fund). Regardless of the subject, if the researcher is Maori their point total is multiplied by 2.5. Furthermore, if the research topic relates to Maori, a further multiplication of 3.0 occurs. This means that a Maori researcher working on a Maori-related subject is ranked 7 times higher in funding precedence than a non-Maori scientist working on some other subject, regardless of any other considerations.

    Also in the news this week, the government gave $100,000 to an “artist” who wrote expletive-laden poetry about violently killing white people.

    This racist insanity is driving our best and brightest overseas, probably never to return.

    1. It’s a civil war, complete with ethnic cleansing, and your Quislings have set their minds to see that you lose it.

      1. Not as easy as just claiming Maori ancestry. Our universities now have “Official Ancestry Verificiation” processes. Those requesting ancestry verification must provide Iwi (Tribe) verification paperwork, proving their traceable Maori ancestry and tribal membership.

        Of course nobody is forced to get this paperwork, but it is essential if you need to prove your ethnicity for a scholarship or other race-based funding.

        1. Ditto in Canada. There is extensive similar vetting to be eligible for “
          indigenous-only hiring, university admissions, scholarships, and research grants. This is to weed out “Pretendians” who might game the system, such as a certain U.S. Seanator and those simply lying through their teeth to horn in on the grift.

          It’s perfectly legal for an employer to advertise that only certain racial and sexual minorities will be hired, and for the government to enable the practice with financial incentives. There is nothing close to an adequate pool of talent in the targeted minorities to fill these spots—I gather the situation is less dire in NZ—so we shall see what happens.

  19. Comment 22, which specifies the large advantage in university research funding enjoyed by projects initiated by and/or concerning the Maori, explains exactly what is going on in Aotearoa.. These advantages, though not spelled out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, are no doubt enjoined by the mystical philosophical principles of MM. The colonialist language also has words for this mystical philosophy: in English, it is called either “Equity” or hustle.

  20. I say let it rip. Humans, as individuals, can be reasoned with, but as a group they will often engage in self destructive cults and no amount of reasoned argument will dissuade them from it, in fact it just hardens their resolve. If NZ goes full MM a few million may suffer but it will serve as a useful reminder to many more of what happens when religion infiltrates society.

    1. Your aim is off, JFM. The people promoting this see themselves as purging their society of Western rationality, which they believe was abetted by the racist colonialism that was doing the bidding of Catholicism and official Protestantism. I’m sure if you asked these activists they would boast about their atheism. They consider indigenous mysticism to be politically useful propaganda, not religion, because they don’t actually believe it. You and I might see it as religion because of the silliness of its tenets, just like Marxism, but it’s practitioners don’t. They see it as a route to power. So stamping out religion, as commonly understood, might be a good thing in itself but it won’t prevent Marxism and it won’t rescue New Zealand. Only the reestablishment of Eurasian thought will.

  21. I am a retired teacher in NZ. This dismantling of Western culture scares me. My own children work in education and science, and they are worried for their children too. This lovely country is sleepwalking into the abyss. Every day I think about what ordinary folk like us can do about this madness. Ideas welcome. Jerry, I have followed you and Richard for years, thanks for keeping me sane

  22. How’s this for a plan?

    1- Take random sample of N well-established scientific tenets.

    2- Find the N corresponding MM tenets, and show how they are in fact equivalent.

    3- If succeed, continue to next step; otherwise shut up.

  23. One more idea, long past the shelf life of this thread: Why stop at science? Teach that MM mathematics is just as accurate as “western” mathematics. List a bunch of science problems that can be solved with western math, then side-by-side solve the same problems using MM math. No commentary needed.

    One thing that mustn’t be forgotten- When McAllister and her ilk criticize science, they don’t have the slightest idea what they’re talking about. Their overconfidence is that demonstrated in the Dunning-Kruger experiment. You can’t answer people like that- they don’t know enough to even hear what you’re saying. Remembering this may (or may not) help mitigate some misunderstandings.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *