Oil and Otago and transgender dives

Please note that links are to sites that hopefully don’t track your interest in this topic. But that cannot be guaranteed.

These are some of my minutes (I’ve redacted most of the rude ones) from a meeting of those who are planning to protest the upcoming Minerals Conference being held in Dunedin in late May. It’s a result of an invitation that was  notified to me by a list that I am on. This meant some meetings, the first of which was perfectly fine despite one participant’s attempts to photograph everyone in the room without any attempt to attain the permission of those photographed. There were plenty of people there, and somewhat of a cross section of support, and although most were in their teens or twenties there were many of us who were not as well. The DCC was represented as were local Iwi. The second meeting I missed and the third was an eye opener in all the wrong ways although I half expected an identity focused* agenda after looking at some of the online (Google…..) documents. There were eight participants including me, nine if you include the person (the photographer just mentioned) who had something to say by iPhone. Mostly we were white NZrs (or Pākehā) although the Photographer/PhoneMan is British, one of the women had somewhat of a North American accent and one of the younger participants seemed to have an association with a local Maori tribe. There were only two women, one of whom’s only attribute seemed to be rudeness. 2 or maybe 3 of the participants were in their late teens. The others were in their 20s. So all were younger than me. I knew none of them beforehand although I had talked to one or two of them at the first meeting.

I have yet to decide how many of this group are working in the shared interests of our planet, rather than in the interests of the privileged, but certainly I need to note that not all of the participants were beyond redemption and that is the reason that I’d prefer to stay in touch with them. That though is not likely to be via this group which GM1 seems very keen on controlling access to (I suspect that I’m about to be ejected). In fact it’s perfectly possible that if GM1 was removed the focus of this group could be on the actual Conference although some of them would still need guidance.

There were some meetings earlier in the week with participants of the Minerals Conference by members of this group previous to the (‘protest’) meeting. There was also foreknowledge of the Austrian company’s announcement that they would be drilling off the Otago coast and this was emailed to everyone the day before the drilling announcement (make of these what you will but it seems rather peculiar behaviour to me).

Anyway here’s some of my notes of the third meeting (I’ve removed names for now but replaced them with a GroupMemberNumber);

  • supposedly everyone was to bring a plate. But hmmm. Maybe I was the only one who did this.
  • On introducing ourselves GM1 asked me to confirm for the group that I was the one who had sent a few emails through earlier in the week. I wasn’t happy with parts of these documents and private meetings with those who we were supposedly going to protest against and had emailed about these issues as well as the lack of security evident in the very un-private emails from this group. Undoubtedly my emails on these topics had been discussed previous to the meeting by at least a few of the other participants (i.e. how do we nullify any actual activists?) of this meeting.
  • The Trans agenda was an  underlying condition. Unlike anything else. It was introduced via the very first point (by GM3 but I think he may have been put up to this) on whether we agreed with ‘the articles of association’ (although named differently) which had been bought lock, stock and barrel from a very small Facebook ‘group’ that 3 or 4 of this meetings’ participants belonged to (which is probably close to their total active membership). There had been transparent attempts to draw me on this topic previously by email and this attempt too was more than obvious in its intent. Subtle it’s not. This was to remain the only topic of conversation for the meeting despite several attempts by myself to draw them on to the supposed focus of this ‘coalition’.
  • I objected to the gist of these documents of course, in fact I stated that they had a Stalinist demeanour to them. GM3 was also uncomfortable with them.
  • GM1 was uncomfortable with me referring to the ‘group think’ and the proposed penalties for ‘wrong think’  (instant expulsion) as Stalinist. Quite uncomfortable. Oh for some insight.
  • GM1 admitted that he was the one who had hyphenated ‘homophobia’ in the online documents and stated that it was a mistake (a mistake that took 2 days to correct mind you). I had emailed my objection to this as transphobia went unhyphenated of course. I’d still like to know how this ‘mistake’ was made, I guess I should search for instances of the spelling as “homo-phobia” to find its genesis. I suspect though that it’s a very conservative origin.
  • when I defined what I meant by women as being women who were born women I was told that I was being transphobic (GM1 & maybe one other, but led by GM1). I was also asked how I felt about upsetting the transgender people in the room  by GM1 (there were 8 of us and everyone was dressed in clothing normal for their birth sex). I may have expressed some derision here as I’m not sure if I managed to control all my facial expressions or eye rolls. But  I grabbed this by its scruffy gaslighting neck and said that the concentration on this issue was likely to make people of my age group or feminists uncomfortable in this group (GM1 didn’t quite know how to handle this unwelcome strategy of claiming victimhood).
  • there were new age/evangelical procedures to attempt to shut down dialogue (referred to as ‘safe spaces’ ).  I was patronisingly asked if I had previous exposure to them (I should have added that as an atheist, no I didn’t have, and nor did I have in recent post-graduate study) There were various laughable ways of trying to achieve this which seemed only to apply to shutting me down. But when other participants failed to obey these ‘off the cuff’ rules (amusingly a variation on spin the bottle) on when you were allowed to speak the rules were dropped but not before it was admitted that they didn’t apply to anyone other than me anyway. I can’t remember who accidentally let this slip but it was probably GM2 who was young enough to think that was fine (she probably had the agreement of GM1). In fact I was rather unimpressed with GM2 as well, I think she’s been promoted well beyond her ability (as has GM1 who knows nothing of what he pretends to).
  • There were frequent threats to eject me from the meeting. Starting within 5 minutes and repeated about every 5 minutes. I withstood my unwelcome but somewhat grudgingly as it’s never pleasant to have to do that.
  • PM1 who photographed everybody at the first meeting (without consent) was played on recording on GM3’s phone (at least we were told that it was a recording). He was trying to control the agenda even though he wasn’t there in his completely inappropriate over-confident style (as if he actually was in control). I had also noticed at the first meeting that he was all trendy talk and ‘hipness’. That’s not a progressive trait in my view, it’s a stereotype.
  • GM3 left the meeting after about an hour. Along with the just mentioned Phone Man…..
  • I did speak often at this meeting, sometimes I had to do so despite attempts to stop me from speaking. Although GM1 had the majority of the ‘stage’ I would have been the next most frequent speaker. But most of that was due to having to defend my dissent to the document (on the articles of association) and its Trans focus.  I did adopt several strategies on the fly for trying to deal with all of this antagonism (led by GM1), the last of which was to not vote on any of the motions even if I agreed with them (mainly because literally no time was given to any discussion of any of them but also because it was obvious that my votes were being judged). I mentioned this at the time and said I was not voting so as to avoid the focus being me (not that 1 second longer on each nitem for voting was going to do any good).
  • I was challenged by GM4 at the end for not voting which supposedly meant that I disagreed with all points being voted on (none of which had any discussion of them). She wasn’t that serious about this though (in my view) and I clarified my actions for her.
  • there may have been frequent invasions of privacy with phones. I had to ask GM4 to cease recording at one point although she denied that she was recording (it certainly looked like she was though). GM2 probably played this game as well. And maybe GM3 too. There seems no concept that maybe phones shouldn’t even be in the mix of such a meeting (i.e. leave them at home guys).
  • GM3 also opposed having to unconditionally support everyone in the group (and kudos to him despite his phone mate) as per the ‘articles’. Category:Groupthink.
  • I mentioned that Facebook group was nothing more (i.e. no other presence) than a facebook group with 100 followers (likely only 4/5 actual active members). And that all the other groups were small as well. Probably after the arrogance about Greenpeace (from GM1) being able to join their coalition (as a junior partner of course – in a coalition of midgets). I had the distinct impression that some of these lads and gals (oops transphobia again) disapproved strongly of Greenpeace. GM1 was keen to know at this stage if anybody belonged to Greenpeace or other such groups which was a rather odd question considering that this was supposed to be a coalition of other (midget but obviously approved) groups.
  • when told that the group was not exclusionary I almost choked and asked what would happen if Renee Gerlich and Charlie Montgomery tried to join (NZ feminists) which caused several of the other participants there to choke and express contempt with the idea. I was told that their membership would be refused by GM1, the irony and immediate contradiction unseen because apparently they were NZ’s biggest transphobes (in reality they’re nothing of the sort). I pointed out that the group was hardly being inclusionary on the basis of refusing membership to Charlie (an environmental focused feminist) and Renee. GM1 even managed to trigger Godwin’s law at this stage as he sputtered about. I called him on this and he then fudged a little, probably triggering some Freud in the process.
  • at a late stage GM1 slyly made a joke and had a snicker (joined by one or two of the others) that I could set up a TERF group against the conference, possibly assuming ignorance on my part of the term/slur but they got a ‘TERF is a slur’ straight back at them which when they bought out the standard defence for this particular slur of  ‘but RFs used it first’ (which of course is untrue anyway). I denied that this was the case and repeated that it definitely was a slur. I then added that I considered it ‘hate speech’ which I do (because it is). GM1 got mighty red above the collar (again) at this stage. Seems he has a few internal conflicts (ha).
  • I mentioned that getting Kai Tahu’s permission/approval was problematic due to their involvement in the dairy industry. I could have just as easily mentioned tourism. I did mention that Kai Tahu were not the only Māori tribe (the main European ones are Scots in Dunedin) in the South Island. I think GM6 may have been a member of one of these other Māori tribes.
  • I was called again on Trans issues when I said that I had to leave (of course) but I rejected the accusation and stated as I had before that feminists would not define themselves as transphobic (in relation to ‘TERF’)  but rather were focused on womens’ rights issues (the term itself with its trans focus indicates its origins). I noted also that I was generally trans supportive as long as women’s spaces were respected (at which stage I was called transphobic again).
  • The voting was done Soviet or NZ Green Party style. 100% agreement with the self appointed leadership (save for me & GM3). No discussion. No dissent allowed.

The other participants contributed less. GM2’s main contribution were negative facial contortions whenever I spoke . I pulled her up on this at one stage which garnered the highly amusing response that she was perfectly free to continue smarming (by GM1 mostly). GM4 was more actively involved than the others. GM5 seemed to have an undercurrent of something about him but I did occasionally agree with him nevertheless. GM6 was young but seemed capable (unlike, in my view, GM2) and GM8 (I was sitting between GM6 & GM8) was young and quiet and gave the impression to me that he needs to spend some time on who he is.

There was literally no discussion of either the minerals (including coal) conference in late May 2019 or the drilling for oil off the coast. None whatsoever. Instead there was 90 minutes or more of essentially Transgender issues.

I have emailed GM1 and suggested that it is inappropriate that he remains a member of this group due to his bigoted commentary on TERFs and his statement that he would not allow people he considered to be defined by this slur to be members of this supposed coalition (aka fiefdom). He  has yet to respond to this suggestion. I have also emailed him with suggestions of some reading material. But I realise that it’s only for show. Interestingly he has used the term ‘good faith’ which kind of reminds me of those old Roman writers who used to claim their lack of bias in the first paragraph of their writings.

I could have left the meeting after 5 minutes, and definitely would have 20 years ago as GM1’s opposition to those not on board with his agenda was obvious from the beginning of the meeting and he seemed to have some support amongst the other participants. But my view is that there is a need to converse even with those who don’t want to converse with you in this new Anthropogenic age which is now becoming very dangerous both due to the physical changes in the world and the collapsing political climate, Anglosphere especially. My view is that we need to change our society significantly, I tend to think that means many small cities (like Dunedin) rather than mega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo or New York or even Auckland. I think the latter encourage, maybe enforce, hierarchy. We need to tip over that hierarchy.

It would seem that the Austrian Oil Company planning to drill off the Otago coast or the organisers of the Minerals conference at the end of May have absolutely nothing to fear from this group. Unless of course they were to make some ‘transphobic’ comments (but in reality they’re probably funding transgender very enthusiastically).

The below was added 20th April, 2019.

I used ‘identatarian’ originally which I kind of thought was my own made up word referring to those who concentrated on gender identity. But apparently it means ‘far right’ specifically in regard to Oceania. This is not the case here, I meant that the focus was on gender identity. Gender ideology is definitely of the right* but I’d describe it as establishment right rather than far-right. I should have looked it up but comme ci, comme ca.

Finally I have not been notified of anything but most certainly I am no longer getting emails regarding this group and I was cut off from the documents when I noted that the old ‘Justice Õtepoti’ link was now a “Coalition” link. This therefore looks essentially to be a rebranding exercise for Justice Õtepoti which itself seems an offshoot of Auckland Peace Action whose last memorable action was to be embarrassed by – the far from intellectual – Sean Plunkett.

* i.e. establishment born. Those tasked with its promotion (with only the pretense to progressiveness) are ultimately of little importance.


2 Replies to “Oil and Otago and transgender dives”

Leave a Reply

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