web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

The Mein Kampf distraction

Written By: - Date published: 8:38 pm, March 26th, 2014 - 509 comments
Categories: blogs, john key, national, tv - Tags:

So Kim Dotcom has a copy of Mein Kampf signed by Adolf Hitler.

I am not so sure how relevant this is.  I recall having a copy of this book when I was at university.  I never read it but I have always taken the view that exposure to all ideas, no matter how vile, is important.  Although my possession was totally academic the tenor of the TV3 story and Slater’s shock and awe post are that Kim is sympathetic to Nazi ideas.  There is also the question of a Nazi flag that he was given for his birthday which he still has.

Dotcom has denied having any Nazi sympathies.  He mentioned that he had a Churchill cigar holder and was a collector of World War 2 paraphernalia so obviously he is an equal opportunity collector.  His commitment to online freedom and his complete lack of any racist tendencies would back this up.  But the right are obviously hoping that the mud sticks.

It feels like a double team effort.  TV3 ran the story tonight and shortly after Slater had a detailed post up.  And the timing is extraordinarily bad for the Internet Party.  Tomorrow is the day of their formal launch.

The disclosure will make Mana think twice about any sort of accommodation with the Internet Party.  To be associated with someone with alleged Nazi sympathies will enrage at least some of their members.

And no doubt this debate will distract from Parata’s problems.

Don’t get me wrong.  Although I think that Dotcom’s charges have been overstated and that he has been mistreated by the authorities, and although I support fully his opposition to the behaviour of US and NZ intelligence agencies in collecting information about all of us I am worried that he has become a political distraction during an election campaign that is vital for New Zealand’s future.  And I prefer that activists put their efforts into progressive parties, rather than a party which seems to have as an underlying goal the affecting of our justice system so that Dotcom does not get extradited.

But I can’t help but think that our main stream media and blogosphere are being manipulated by some pretty skilled operatives.

If Kim wants to respond perhaps now is a good time for him to release details of any pre raid meetings he may have had with John Key.

509 comments on “The Mein Kampf distraction”

  1. Clemgeopin 1

    A very good post there. I agree. The MSM has become quite a manipulating crooked crap outfit destroying people, politics and democracy. Mischievously equating his memorabilia collection with the Natzis is just intended to do unfair political and personal damage and character assassination. Our media is turning into gutter media wallowing in sewer stuff.

    I was disappointed with the reporter, Sabin, who normally seems quite balanced in his reporting.

    I think most people are not stupid and this kind of evil ‘reporting’ will eventually work against the National party and the MSM. I am also wondering how the media had quite detailed information about the various meetings that Mr Kim Dot Com had with some MPs!

    I hope our country and media does not turn corrupt and manipulative as has happened in so many other countries.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Yep the tracking of MPs visits to Dotcom Mansion is particularly creepy and needs some more investigation.

      • Wayne 1.1.1

        mickysavage (and also Tracey)

        On this particular issue, you need to read Kiwiblog and Whaleoil. If only half of what they say is correct, then this is way more, and way worse, than owning a book. And in this instance it is not just the title, but the fact it is signed by Hitler.

        Sure you can say it was timed to embarrass KDC, but since KDC is seeking to influence NZ politics, it is essential that NZer’s know this, and what better time than now.

        I recall that many years ago the West German govt had to withdraw their Ambassador from NZ because he had been an officer in a SS Division.

        • geoff 1.1.1.1

          yes let’s listen to the mouthpiece of national on this one because theyre so independent.

          what a gall you’ve got wayne.

          we dont have to worry about a ‘fat gerrman’, we need to worry about the scummy, thieving, corrupt and venal national party that will do absolutely anything it can to hold onto power.

        • lprent 1.1.1.2

          …you need to read Kiwiblog and Whaleoil.

          I already did. It is interesting hearsay and an exercise in how to smear without having to prove anything.

          Even if it was all true. Have you even met collectors? They are a very strange breed. They get fascinated, spend money, and obsess over the weirdest things

          And I’m sure that it has relevance to you, just as it has some relevance to me. After all I was born 14 years after WW2. My parents were born at the start of the war. So I grew up surrounded by relatives who were embedded in it.

          But I don’t think that it has much direct relevance to young adults who were born 40 or even 50 years after the end of WW2. They’re also the people that the Internet party is targeting. The ones who are more concerned about old fogies trying to cut access to the net

          What does have relevance to them I suspect is the clear smear campaign against the IP. They will recognise that in a heartbeat because they grew up with this kind of thing deeply embedded in their lives. They don’t watch network TV and they know deep in their bones the social media are always trying to sell them lines. Cynical doesn’t even begin to describe their meme sophistication…

          And finally, it makes it very easy to push the message about ubiquitous surveillance on the net by the GCSB and the police being leaked to herald/mediaworks/TV3/Kiwiblog/Whaleoil (National’s media grouping) to try to discredit political oppositions…. FFS That is priceless publicity for the IP in their demographic.

          This kind of campaign appears to me to be more effective at attracting the net people to the Internet party.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.3

          if you dont know whether what they are posting is true why would you want me to read it?

          if what they are saying turns out to be proven then i am happy to discuss it. at the moment all I know is he has a signed version of mein kampf with signed stalin and churchill stuff.

          i wonder why they didnt wait til the could publish proof of their claims.

          • Wayne 1.1.1.3.1

            Tracey,

            Kiwiblog and Whaleoil do cite evidence. They refer to people who heard things that KDC said about Hitler, or saw things at the KDC mansion about the Nazi era. Now some statements that KDC allegedly said have been disputed by KDC. But that means that there is a conflict of evidence, not that there is no evidence. And of course resolving conflicts of evidence is something that Courts do all the time.

            In the case of the book, the evidence is not in dispute, but the motive of owning the book is.

            As I said, go and read KB and WO yourself, and you can make your own assessment. But you can’t make an assessment unless you read them.

            • felix 1.1.1.3.1.1

              “Kiwiblog and Whaleoil do cite evidence. They refer to people who heard things…”

              And that’s Wayne’s contribution to the National Party spin today. Lolz.

              • Wayne

                Technically it is heresay. But this does not automatically disqualify it.

                But Kiwiblog and Whaleoil cite people who were actually talking to KDC, or who had direct knowledge of what they heard and saw.

                As a general proposition, this is how all print media have to report people who have specific allegations. The people themselves are not writing the articles, it is the journalist or the blogger who is doing so. So such reporting in the print media is almost always heresay.

                This is the great advantage of radio and TV. They can directly interview on air the person making the allegation, so the listener or viewer actually hears or sees the person making the allegation.

                And in a court, the person making the allegation that they heard “X” say “Y” or that they saw or heard something, has to testify to that effect in person. The person can be cross examined, and their evidence contradicted.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  The technical term is drivel. Still, it’s revealing that you place such faith in a man who mocks dead children for money. It says a lot about you, Dr. Mapp.

                  • vto

                    Sounds like Obama saying that he will no longer let the spies spy on us. Trust us, says Obama ….. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …..

                • lprent

                  Technically it is heresay. But this does not automatically disqualify it.

                  Yep, and the point about hearsay is that you have to look at the person “reporting” it. If they are a serial and compulsive liar like Cameron Slater is and has been in distorting facts, then you have to assume everything he says or writes is just another lie.

                  The same applies to a lesser extent to David Farrar. He seldoms lies. However he does spin stories by focusing on anything except whatever is important.

                  Both, in my opinion, have John Key’s minions hand up their arse moving their fingers and mouth. It has been hard to see any evidence that either actually know how to think for themselves these days.

            • Tracey 1.1.1.3.1.2

              when did you read the hollowmen?

              you havent read the draft tpp agreement but you thinks its great for nz.

        • swordfish 1.1.1.4

          “……the West German govt had to withdraw their Ambassador from NZ because he had been an officer in a SS Division.”

          The Baader-Meinhof gang may have been a bunch of vicious, murdering bastards but they did get one thing right: the post-war West German government – and wider civil society -remained absolutely riddled with former leading and mid-grade Nazis. All facilitated by the US, which quickly grew tired of prosecuting former Nazi war criminals (and, in fact, recruited some of them via the CIA) and took any criticism of the nature of the West Germany polity as an attack on its Cold War policies.

      • PapaMike 1.1.2

        MikeySavage

        Ask his ex staff, who revealed the names of people who went to Coatsville.
        When asked they all revealed they did, but not why.

    • Anne 1.2

      I am also wondering how the media had quite detailed information about the various meetings that Mr Kim Dot Com had with some MPs!

      Kim Dotcom is under constant surveillance and his communications are subjected to close scrutiny. It isn’t necessarily a state run agency that is responsible (although I’m sure the GCSB is in there somewhere) because The NATZES have access to plenty of dosh and can purchase individuals who have surveillance expertise and the wherewithal to carry it out. The results go into JK’s top drawer and is removed and released at a time it can do the most damage.

      Isn’t that how the author of the book in question used to operate?

      • Clemgeopin 1.2.1

        TV3 ran this crap non story as the main ‘news’ at 6 pm! Unbelievable.
        I have lost my respect for the two reporters and more importantly, TV3.
        But I do think that most viewers are smart enough and fair minded enough to see things through clearly in a just manner and realise that they are being manipulated by stupid Tv3 reporters and some invisible corrupt entities somewhere behind the scene!

        • newsense 1.2.1.1

          wait hang on- Tony Abbott is running basically concentration camps where internees have no rights and Key wants to have the same policy…

          surely that’s more of a story…unless the principles don’t matter at all…

        • pete lusk 1.2.1.2

          It could well backfire on TV 3

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.2

        The former head of security has been suborned by interests trying to get John Banks off the hook for his trial on election corruption.

        This former employee is one of those who gave an affidavit to the police about the meeting where Banks asked for the donation to be split in two so it wouldnt look so large amoung other donations.

        Kim Dotcom would have preferred to be named as a donor as he didnt mind the publicity ( Aint that the truth).

        Whats the bet this guy wont be in the country come time to be in the witness box

    • poem 1.3

      Too late, the media in NZ are already corrupt and manipulative.

    • Tom Gould 1.4

      The connections between the Herald and Slater and the big Tories is now pretty well known around town. They even get in photos together. While I have no time for Dot Com, it is disturbing that the Tories and their cronies and paid lackeys in the media have carefully constructed this attack capability able to destroy anyone’s character and career, at will. This is very dangerous and needs the disinfectant of daylight. The irony of the subject matter hook for this particular attack should not be lost on thinking people.

  2. Tanz 2

    Thought he had changed his mind and was bowing out of politics, so that the Greens could hoover up his would-be votes.

  3. Philj 3

    Xox
    Corrupted media? Why should the media be exempt from undue ‘influence’.Too late I say..!

  4. Richard Christie 4

    I’m no fan of Kim Dotcom but Gower’s piece was an outright disgrace, a blatant beatup.

    Patrick Gower is a disgrace to his profession. Total wanker.

    • exitlane 4.1

      Dotcom saying he has Jewish heritage was edited out of the Brook Sabin TV3 News interview yet Gower harps on about Key’s Jewish Mum

      a manipulative blatant beat up then

      • Will@Welly 4.1.1

        And she had already fled Austria by the time Hitler unleashed himself on the majority of Europe. She was safe in England. She later came to New Zealand after the war. She was not a solo mother till Mr Key passed away. She was a divorcee, in those days.
        Mr Gower needs a refresher in basic history 101.

  5. cricklewood 5

    None the less with all the skeletons rattling around his closet more fool the politician that gets to close.
    Regarding the hit piece Slater has been hinting on this for weeks I wouldn’t be surprised if Dotcom decided to beat him to the punch as it were. Forcing slater to post almost straight after rather than releasing it on the day of the launch…

  6. greywarbler 6

    I might mention here a piece on Bryan Crump’s nightly Radionz show about the way that Iandian newspapers run infoadverts in lieu of reporting real news. Or they charge to print some news item.

    One did a piece with people recommending some new rice with personal anecdotes. Farmers took it at face value then found it needed more pesticide, more water and its yield was not that high.

    They charge politicians to say something about them when coming up to elections.

    And politicians own tv stations. They put their own spin on stuff. And they go to the poor in the slums and provide them with tv tuned in to their own station. The people are pretty keen on the tv and enjoy being included. And they know who to vote for.

    • Clemgeopin 6.1

      That is so wicked and so sad for democracy and good values. The big business, the crooked corporates, the wickedly wealthy and the corrupt politicians can so easily fool, manipulate and destroy institutions, nations and people. It is very disheartening. There has to be a better way and a better sense of fairness, justice and value.

  7. geoff 7

    The TV3 political news team are sensationalists. That’s their culture, it’s just a consequence of the people who trained up their current team of ‘journalists’. Nothing to be done about it, that’s just the lay of the land.
    Gower isn’t good or bad he just churns out the most sensationalist story that he can. He takes whatever ingredients he can get his hands on, cranks the handle and out slops the shit.

    The difference between National and the opposition is that National has had a lot more practice at dealing with this style of reporting and they are better resourced. So more often than not, they manage to spin the barrel of the gower turd-blaster towards Labour or Greens etc rather than the other way round.

    There is now 25 weeks until the election.

    That’s 25 political news cycles, and National has no where to go in the polls but down.

    Wayne Eagleson’s number 1 goal will be to try and stop any of those 25 weeks being filled with negative stories for National in the MSM.

    Part of that strategy will be filling the TV3 turd blaster up with as much irrelevant, fluffy shit as possible, and pointing it away from themselves.

    Ergo, dotcom owns a copy of Mein Kampf.

    • mickysavage 7.1

      Agreed Geoff. Labour is hopeless at smearing. We should concentrate on grassroots action and policy and ignore the personal stuff.

  8. Tamati 8

    Give it up Greg, have a read of what you’re saying ask yourself if you’re are making any sense!

    This book is personally signed by Hitler himself and is one of the first books published. Only sick minded people would ever want to own a relic connected to such a vile person. Items such as this belong in museums.

    I don’t believe Dotcom is some sort of white supremacist or racist, his actions have never demonstrated that he is. But he has shown extremely poor morals in owning such an item, and he’s not the kind of person who should be leading a political party.

    I hope some other Standardistas come out and condemn this despicable act. I’d be extremely surprised if David Cunliffle or Russel Norman aren’t very critical of Dotcom’s actions tomorrow.

    • Rodel 8.1

      Wtf are you on about? Not even a nice try.

    • PJ 8.2

      Damn right.

      Burn that book. Throw it on the bonfire. Along with the rest.

    • mickysavage 8.3

      Tamati I am not sure that you understand what I was saying.

      So the book is signed by Hitler himself. Dotcom is someone who likes spending his considerable wealth on stuff that can be described as conversation pieces. Presuming he does own a cigar holder by Churchill then he is willing to spend money on some strange stuff. Do I suggest that his actions are normal? All that I defend is possession of the book itself.

      I am happy you agree that Dotcom is not some sort of white supremacist. And I did not defend his taste. I agree with you he has shown very poor taste but that is not the point.

      Am I condoning his owning an autographed copy of Mein Kampf? Not at all. I questioned its relevance as a news item and thought that the timing of the story was suspicious but otherwise have made no judgment on the ownership of the book.

      I have always held strong views on the importance of freedom of speech. This includes allowing people to own what may be one of the most obnoxious books written in the history of humanity so that the ideas can be critiqued and discounted.

      And I do not view the ownership of a book to be a despicable act. And I am sure that most Green supporters would feel the same way.

      Edit: What PJ said.

      • Tamati 8.3.1

        We’ll wait and see what the Green Party leadership says about this tomorrow but I’d be happy to wager that they’re pretty strongly condemning of Dotcom’s actions. Just the other week Metiria Turei attacked the sale of handcuffs used to detain Maori slaves, so I think this is pretty consistent with that.

        I don’t think this is a media beat up, Dotcom is starting a political party and the public have a right to know his moral turpitude. It’s clearly a timed media release, but that’s a game both sides play. This matter is absolutely relevant to the public and good on Sabin for digging it up. (I.M.O Sabin was probably tipped off from someone inside W.O. , or Dotcom told Sabin to deny W.O the satisfaction of an exclusive scoop)

        I agree with you on free speech. It shouldn’t be a criminal act to offend someone. But this in my mind is a moral crime, and leaders of political parties should be held to high moral standards. Interestingly, your mate Tony Abbot across the ditch agrees with us too.

        And finally, you can’t justify owning Nazi memorabilia, by saying you own Stalin and Churchill memorabilia too!

      • Populuxe1 8.3.2

        What sort of conversation does one have over an autographed special edition of Mein Kampf exactly?

        • Tracey 8.3.2.1

          conversation? Hmmm I have an autographed Virginia Woolf on my book shelf along with first edition Katherine Mansfield and signed Janet Frames… also Simone de Beauvoir signed Second Sex. No one discusses them with me, they are on my bookshelf.

          He is a German, Hitler is an integral part of that history. I can understand a rich guy wanting such a thing.

          Who knows in Japan they probably dont speak kindly of that bloke who ordered the bombing of hiroshima, anypone got his first edition in their USA libraries?

          I have an original of the olympic games books from 1936 in berlin.

          Given how Slater behaves I wonder if he is secretly jealous he can’t afford the book himself.

          IF DotCom has nazi views, eugenics, anti semite and is attending secret meetings of like minded people to start his own night of the knives, then lets bust his arse. Given the surveillance of him, I am sure the powers know if he is doing this.

          He IS a major distraction. But faux outrage from a guy who is so selfishly hell bent on his own agenda that he exposed the identity of a victim of sexual abuse is not in a position to take any moral high ground.

          Anyway, isn’t it time the opposition laboured the point that the only politician and party in any way financially connected to Dotcom (proven) is JOHN BANKS.

          • Pete George 8.3.2.1.1

            John Banks wasn’t connected to a party and wasn’t an MP when he received donations from Dotcom.

            • Tracey 8.3.2.1.1.1

              not true. he is connected by association Pete. You saying he stopped meeting with national
              and ACT folks? Abandoned the ideology of ACT and national?

              NEVER said he was an MP when he took the donation, I used the word “politician”, and of course he was connected with a party. Only you, it seems, believe that he was genuinely an “independent” Mayor.

              • I’m not saying or believing anything like that.

                I don’t know what if any connections Banks had with National after he left Parliament in 1999. And I’m not aware of him having any meetings or connections with ACT prior to Brash’s coup in 2011.

                Just as I don’t know what party connections Len Brown may have had. Do you think he was totally independent of any party in 2010?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  :roll:

                  What an asshole.

                • framu

                  then why did you say this? “John Banks wasn’t connected to a party ”

                  either you know its a fact or you dont – and going by the comment above you dont know, so why say it?

                  cmon PG – its john banks were talking about here – of course hes still conencted in some way to both national and act – his entire political history has been

                  why do you engage in such transparent idiocy?

                  [lprent: This is unresolveable as memberships are not published AND every political party I know of has specific proscriptions against revealing such information.

                  The only thing either you or PG could work from is statements from John Banks, and based on what I know of his track record I'd have to say that I wouldn't trust them as being definitive.

                  So you are left with opinions. Neither of you should be trying to present it as fact. ]

                  • “of course hes still conencted in some way to both national and act – his entire political history has been”

                    Can you show any substance to claiming he was connected to National and Act when he stood for the mayoralty in 2010?

                    Your claim that “his entire political history has been” connected to Act is obvious nonsense.

                    • mickysavage

                      Pete, Pete, Pete, Pete …

                      You have to be joking. Banks is as tribal National as I am tribal Labour. Even natives in the Amazon know about his affiliation.

                      [lprent: Stop poking the fact checker with hyperbole. ]

                    • felix

                      Banks has been a devoted National Party supporter and/or member and/or promoter and/or Minister and/or MP all his adult life, right up to the point at which he crossed to ACT and ran almost solely on a platform of using his position in parliament to support National (I believe “support a John Key government” was the specific phrase he used over and over and over again).

                      Of course you are entirely at liberty to pretend that you arrived on earth yesterday and have no knowledge of the context of this discussion.

                      However it does leave you in no position to demand evidence of anything when you are the one making the extraordinary claim.

                      If John Banks ever renounced National then I suppose you’ll be able to present some record of it. If not, it’s safe to assume that gravity continued to attract us to the planet, water remained wet, and John Banks continued to be a true blue Nat through and through.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Because he’s an asshole.

                  • framu

                    fair call Iprent

                    sloppy typing on my part – apologies

                    i meant more along the lines of – “given bank’s political history, one could reasonably assume that he still is connected to national and has links to act”

                    an opinion, based on publicly known factors if you will.
                    Never intended to present it as Fact, and unwittingly did the same thing i was pulling PG up on within the one comment – doh!

            • David H 8.3.2.1.1.2

              Oh horseshit. banks always was and is a NAT. And he was trying to become the first roll over and beg, compliant to the Govt kind of a SuperCity mayor But he got beat.

              • Are you stating that as a fact? I think it’s unlikely to be true, just as other claims Banks has always been National and Act.

                Banks would have broken National Party rules if he joined Act while a member of National. And he would have broken ACT rules if he was a candidate and MP for them while a member of National.

                http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/National_party_rules_0.pdf
                http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/parties/rules/ACT%20Constitution%20and%20Rules.pdf

                Maybe you have facts to the contrary?

                [lprent: Is that an example?

                Pretty clear that has to be an opinion. It is an impossible 'fact'. I sometimes warn on those about clarity but don't ban on them unless I see a pattern of deliberate deception (ie the classic "I didn't say (quite) that" flame starters).

                If you want to be a pedant at it (and I know that you do), the National party rules will state that they require a legal name before becoming a member (it is in the electoral act). You can't get a legal name until after birth. Banks must at some point in his existence been both in existence and without a legal name.

                Not to mention there is no such thing as NAT (what is that?). Breaking rules for party membership is not something that can be forbidden, it can only have consequences like expelling if found out. etc etc

                However I would ban the person trying to waste my time trying to say it was a assertion of absolute fact. Calling on moderators without a good reason is dangerous as well. ]

          • Tracey 8.3.2.1.2

            here’s some Harry Truman signed stuff…

            how many died in Japan and in the next couple of generations cos of the bombs he ordered dropped?

            http://www.ebay.com/bhp/harry-truman-signed

            Dresden anyone?

            Vietnam war anyone? Kennedy is so loved yet he is the one who escalated that wee holocaust for the cittizens of Vietnam…

            Yup, Hitler was evil, one of many sadly, and in different guises. A few around today too.

          • Populuxe1 8.3.2.1.3

            None of which are in any way shape or form comparable. It’s more like owning one of John Wayne Gacey’s clown paintings.

            • Tracey 8.3.2.1.3.1

              he ordered the killing of mostly civillians in hiroshima and nagasaki and condemn many more to slow deaths by cancer.Its actually worse if you dont think he was evil to do that.

              • Populuxe1

                Only if your answer for everything is to blame America. It must make things so much simpler for you

                • felix

                  Answer for “everything”?

                  According to Pop, laying the blame for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the feet of the person/s who ordered the bombings = blaming America for everything.
                  :roll:

                  • Populuxe1

                    The eye roll emoticon loses most of its impact when you overuse it.
                    I’m just endlessly fascinated by the way certain people will try to draw moral equivalence by wringing their hands and wailing “Hiroshima” and “Nagasaki”, but never show the same enthusiasm for recalling Japan’s atrocities – various massacres (the Rape of Nanjing being the worst), the sexual enslavement of women, and those just charming fire balloons they sent to North America. It just oozes hypocrisy.

        • Tracey 8.3.2.2

          “This guy was such a nutter, how couldn’t anyone see it coming?”

          “he laid it all out here, and they still “elected” him, it’s amazing how propaganda can be so effective”

          “he couldn’t spell”

          • Clemgeopin 8.3.2.2.1

            “He once made a three way shake with Roosevelt and Churchill all at once!……Ha, ha, that was a troty, my dear!”

      • lurgee 8.3.3

        I’d say regarding a copy of Mein Kampf signed by Hitler as a ‘conversation piece’ tells you a lot about .com and his disconnect from historical reality. It was a newsworthy story, just like Colin Craig’s mentalist views.

    • JanM 8.4

      Morals??????????? Now that doesn’t make sense. I own many books whose authors I heartily disagree with – Hitler was a complete madman but I think that if we allow his thinking to be hidden it will become shrouded in mystery and that increases the danger of a repetition – he managed to persuade a lot of others to agree with him and subjugate a whole nation.
      I think his book needs to be read, analysed and understood – sunlight kills germs!

      • mickysavage 8.4.1

        Tamati’s argument could be used to restrict internet access.

        • Tamati 8.4.1.1

          No, I said it showed bad morals but it shouldn’t be a criminal act.

          • miravox 8.4.1.1.1

            “I said it showed bad morals “

            Would you give me a few examples about what other ownership of goods that show bad morals / despicable acts that wannabe politicians deserve this kind of scrutiny over?

            • Tamati 8.4.1.1.1.1

              Using secret trusts to hide the identity of political donors.

              • miravox

                Rather a narrow view of morals…

                How about owning shares in companies that sell products that kill people, not because you agree with the product, but because it’s a good investment? Not on the list?

                • Tamati

                  You asked for an example, I gave you one. It wasn’t an exhaustive list of all immoral activities.

                  Owning shares in weapons companies could be considered unethical by some. The media would have every right (and obligation) to report this and let the public make their own moral judgement.

                  • miravox

                    “The media would have every right (and obligation) to report this and let the public make their own moral judgement.”

                    And therein lies they problem. The media doesn’t report widely on things that are morally suspect, or can be used to judge the character of a would-be politician (although Cunliffe was obviously give a rough time recently). I’d like to know more about the advice Crosby Textor gives the NActs, for instance. The spin they put on events is seriously immoral, imo but I don’t see the MSM reporting on that.

                    I just can’t get all worked up about this. Dotcom bought the book – to give this book and signature any value whatsoever is to me wrong, though that is not why this story has come out now. The reason behind why the story came out may be just as immoral as the purchase of a repugnant book that Dotcom will likely never read. But it will probably take a bit of digging by alternative media to discover the path to the story.

                    Of at least as much relevance to the character of Dotcom is giving money to a crook like Banks and colluding to hide the donation. The responses of a whole lot of politicians to that incident speaks volumes about their characters and their take on ethics in politics too.

        • Populuxe1 8.4.1.2

          There’s a difference between reading something H1tler wrote on line for curiosity or historial research online and owning a relic of H1tler.

          • Tracey 8.4.1.2.1

            is it HITLER’s copy of Mein Kampf?

            If not it is not a relic of Hitler it is something he signed.

            • Populuxe1 8.4.1.2.1.1

              It is the edition H1tler had made especially – the jailhouse edition, and H1tler’s signature is indeed a relic of H!tler and they are Hltler’s thoughts, his grand plan.
              Are you hard of braining?

      • Tamati 8.4.2

        My argument is that’s a signed copy. The book available online, open source. It shows poor moral judgement and an implicit endorsement of Nazism by paying huge amounts of money for these kinds of items.

        I’m all for students, historians and member of the public reading Mien Kampf and studying Nazi Germany. However, signed copies of Mien Kampf need to be put in their appropriate historical context in a museum.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 8.4.2.1

          Churchill was a notorious imperialist in the 1920s as well.

          He wanted poison gas to be used on rebellious Iraqi tribesman and he wanted planes to bomb and machine gun Irish rebels. He held high political positions at the time which allowed him to set policy in Iraq and Ireland

          • Populuxe1 8.4.2.1.1

            Did he write a book that inspired a genocide and then act it out? No.

            • ghostwhowalksnz 8.4.2.1.1.1

              Well its only a fantasy unless you have 60 million germans agreeing with you.

              • swordfish

                “Well its only a fantasy unless you have 60 million germans agreeing with you.”

                No. That’s the bullshit peddled by Daniel Goldhagen. 60 million Germans did not agree to the Holocaust and 60 million Germans did not participate in it.

            • Tracey 8.4.2.1.1.2

              Know much about the lead up to the wholesale destruction of Dresden at the end of WWII?

              • Populuxe1

                A war crime, yes. On the same scale, no. Using the “tu quo” fallacy of moral equivalence just makes you a Naz1 apologist.

                • Tracey

                  You are getting yourself too worked up. I am not a nazi apologist but nor will I stand by while people such as you, bemoan and hand wring a well documented and publicised horror from many decades ago and yet seem largely oblivious to the same things happening over and over since and will happen today resulting in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people not selected for the news.

                  Remember Rwanda? The 100 days? The 500,000 to 1,000,0000 killed and estimates of over 800,000 women raped?

                  Stop your fixation with Hitler and Mr DotCom, you are playing the game of making Hitler seem a one-off when in fact what he was capable of is in many many people, many alive today, just waiting to be triggered or to have an opportunity to play out.

                  His book would not matter one jot if not for a very clever propaganda and public manipulation strategy…. it’s the later that ought to frighten and enrage you more, not the book.

                  Interesting that you consider scale to be the measure of evil. How very cold of you.

                  • Populuxe1

                    Hitler was a one off – I can’t think of anyone else who managed to turn a reasonably liberal western democracy into an industrialised production line killing machine. History. Acquaint yourself with it.

                    • @..populuxx….

                      ..um..!..bush/america..?..traq..?.torture..?.etc..etc..?

                      (recent) ‘History. Acquaint yourself with it.’

                      ..eh..?

                    • miravox

                      Germany wasn’t a ‘reasonably liberal western democracy’ – yes, it was western, it had a democracy – flawed as it was, but it was politically deeply-divided and an economic basketcase.

                      Yes, the industrialised production line killing machine was unique but it was a progression on the work of others (Boer war comes to mind). The man, sadly, was not unique. If he was surely you’d not be so concerned about a wannabe politician owning this book? (concerned above and beyond other abhorrent things that politicians might own, that is).

                    • Tracey

                      You have a very myopic view of history then.

                      I assume you abhore him having anything of Stalin as well? But Truman is ok cos, his atrocity was against the Japanese who had themselves committed atrocities so deserved it?

                    • David H

                      Ummm when it came to killing off your enemies at home, and abroad. Plus Ethnic cleansing then Stalin made Hitler look like a babe in the woods. And ol’ uncle Joe Stalin was on the side of ‘right’. And it’s just a book, a very valuable book, but it’s only a book in the end.

                    • Mike S

                      Umm, George Bush – Weapons of mass destruction – over a million innocent Iraqi people killed.

                      The United States has been at war somewhere in the world every year since the end of WW2. Now that’s an “industrialised production line killing machine”

                  • Clemgeopin

                    @Tracey:
                    I had the same thought a this morning as your comment further down {which does not have a ‘reply’ button] where you wrote :”You have a very myopic view of history then. I assume you abhore him having anything of Stalin as well? But Truman is ok cos, his atrocity was against the Japanese who had themselves committed atrocities so deserved it?” I feel so very sorry for those innocent civilian Japanese people! Just imagine if the Japs or Germany had done that to an USA or UK city or imagine if we were victims there.

                • ghostwhowalksnz

                  Who was it who said

                  “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians”

                  Yes of course it doesnt justify the murders of millions of jews but its a double standard to let British Imperialism off the hook

        • redfred 8.4.2.2

          Nope it is not an implicit endorsement of Nazism; quite a ridiculous statement.

          It is part of a collection of world war 2 leaders memorabilia, simple as that.

          To suggest anything else is just mischievous buying into the well orchestrated anti Internet Party PR stunt.

      • lprent 8.4.3

        I own many books whose authors I heartily disagree with…

        High on my list is the bible that I have a epub of. The old testament in particular. If people live by that then they’d make the Nazis look like saints.

        • Matthew Hooton 8.4.3.1

          But would you buy an original edition signed by Leviticus?

          • lprent 8.4.3.1.1

            I got rid of all of my hard copy books in 2012 because it was too much of a pain to transport and store thousands of the damn things.

            So no – I wouldn’t. But I’m not one of those strange people who do collect crap like old bibles.

            However I also know some asiduous collectors of matter. My parents for instance, were into collecting antiques. Accidentally at first because they brought cheap second hand furniture when they were poor, then as a hobby because they liked its robustness, and eventually as investors (they made quite a lot of money sending their surplus via container to the UK).

            As far as I could tell from their potted histories of blood soaked elizabethan pieces, the more notorious a piece’s history, the more collectible and saleable it was.

            Basically, I suspect that your insinuated smearing has a flawed basis in fact.

          • Huginn 8.4.3.1.2

            Ha! that’s very funny, MH

    • Clemgeopin 8.5

      It is a historical document, however wicked and evil the author might have been. Besides it is a collectible item of huge monetary and historical value. I think that there is nothing wrong in owning that book. The ideas in it are abhorrent, sure, but the memorabilia itself is not. Why do you think its place is only in the museum? What about the old testament, Mao’s red book, Satanic Verses, Karl Mark’s Das Kapital etc?

      Another bit of trivia for you: Hitler’s book was about racial hatred. Give me one example of KimDotCom himself being racist in his views or actions. I think he is even married to an Asian woman.

      • Tamati 8.5.1

        It’s only worth so much because idiots like Dotcom are willing to pay so much.

        • Clemgeopin 8.5.1.1

          True. It is only worth what the filthy rich collectors or institutions are prepared to pay.

          It is still just an important historical book. It is a book that is bought here, not the ‘ideas’ of the book.

          The fact is that the so called ‘news’ item delivered the day before the launch of his party was not as a result of their dislike of the memorabilia, but the result of their determination to destroy the man and his party and manipulate democracy and people’s thinking. Can’t you see that?

          • Tamati 8.5.1.1.1

            It’s absolutely a timed piece to discredit Dotcom. All sides of the political spectrum release opposition intelligence timed for maximum effect. Voters deserve to know about Dotcom and the more they know the better. Speaking the truth isn’t manipulating democracy.

          • Populuxe1 8.5.1.1.2

            The reason such things reach such high prices is because the unpleasant people who collect them want them specifically as relics of the monster the y regard as some kind of mythic hero. Don’t trivialise it as “just a book” – Neonazis make shrines out of this kind of shit.

            • felix 8.5.1.1.2.1

              Careful with that line of reasoning, Pop. I don’t think you’ll like where it leads.

              • Populuxe1

                It probably leads to the other hole you talk out of, Felix. Some things have intrinsic historical value. Some things are only valueable for th eevil that they represent. That particular evil is very much with us today from the stupid end of the spectrum like Kyle Chapman all the way to cunning and charming Kerry Bolton, and that’s just in NZ. You have no idea.

                • felix

                  whoosh

                  • Populuxe1

                    You really ought to acquaint yourself with the horrors of the neonaz1 revival – it’s scary.

                    ^ The joke
                    v Your mother

                • @ populux..

                  where do you draw the line..?

                  ..slave-manacles..?

                  ..the many butcherings done in the name of the british empire..?

                  ..the treatment of aborigines by the australian govt…?

                  ..’evil’ has a broad spectrum..

            • Mike S 8.5.1.1.2.2

              “want them specifically as relics of the monster the y regard as some kind of mythic hero”

              Don’t know where you got the evidence to support that statement from but most of the collectors I know are in it for the money. Don’t always believe what you think.

          • Jimmie 8.5.1.1.3

            Hmmm think Green/Labour NZ Power policy – released prior to MRP float?

      • Populuxe1 8.5.2

        Then why can’t he read it online – not that he strikes me as the bookish sort. Why does he have to own a physical relic of the most evil regime the West has ever known?

        “I think he is even married to an Asian woman.”
        Yeah, and Japan was an Axis power as equally as expansionist and genocidal as the Naz1s

        Paul Holmes married a Maori and I’ve been shouted down on this very website for suggesting that might not make him as bigger racist as he’s been painted

        • Clemgeopin 8.5.2.1

          I don’t agree with your views.

          • Populuxe1 8.5.2.1.1

            Which views – Naz1 Germany being one of the most evil regimes the west has ever known, or Imperial Japan being an genocidan and expansionsit power?

        • miravox 8.5.2.2

          “Then why can’t he read it online”

          Who said he wants to read it? From the way his response is worded it appears he just wants to own it. He doesn’t even have it with him, it’s stored in Europe.

          • Populuxe1 8.5.2.2.1

            So he just likes owning H1tler relics. Thta’s ok then eye roll

            • miravox 8.5.2.2.1.1

              “Thta’s ok then eye roll”

              No, it’s not ok, imo. My comment was simply about the likelihood of Dotcom reading the book.

        • Tracey 8.5.2.3

          “Yeah, and Japan was an Axis power as equally as expansionist and genocidal as the Naz1s”

          so what Truman authorised on them was ok then. Good we are sorting out morality so succinctly today.

          • Populuxe1 8.5.2.3.1

            You seem to have a soft spot for genocidal regimes, Tracey. I’m sure Tokyo had far less moral justification when th erape of Nanjing was ordered.

        • Mike S 8.5.2.4

          “Why does he have to own a physical relic of the most evil regime the West has ever known?”

          Because an online version is worth nothing, his is worth big bucks.

    • Populuxe1 8.6

      I agree. Germans of his generation are not partcularly ambivalent about their history and basically you would have to be a very cold fish to want to own a signed special edition of the book that killed 6 million jews. Especially as Dotcom doesn’t strike me as the scholarly type.

      • Clemgeopin 8.6.1

        Does one need to be a drunk to own a winery?

        • Populuxe1 8.6.1.1

          No, but you’d need to like wine a lot and have an ambivalent attitude to alcoholism

      • Tracey 8.6.2

        have you read it? When?

        • Populuxe1 8.6.2.1

          Do I own it? Would I own a copy? No. I at least have an academic justification in that I have a field speciality in Jewish-European refugees in New Zealand.

          • Tracey 8.6.2.1.1

            have you read it? When?

            • Populuxe1 8.6.2.1.1.1

              Yes – but it’s virtually unreadable. I have read it in a university library under academic supervision as part of historical research into the rise of the Reich. I do not own a copy and would not want to, least of all because of a direct physical association with H!tler, and certainly not as a morbid conversation piece. Damn you are some kind of ar$bramble

              • Richard Christie

                You degenerate.

                You didn’t wear gloves and a hazard suit when reading it.

                I bet you didn’t take a shower before leaving the library either,

                That’s only morally justifiable circumstance under which physical contact with Hitler memorabilia is justifiable.

              • Tracey

                Well, I expect alot of people are googling it as we type… and some may even read it…

          • thatguynz 8.6.2.1.2

            “I have a field speciality in Jewish-European refugees in New Zealand”

            So perhaps this means that you aren’t look at this impartially? Seems to me you are seriously over-thinking this one Pop..

      • DS 8.6.3

        Mein Kampf didn’t kill six million Jews (and gypsies and communists and homosexuals…). Because the damn thing is so unreadable, very few actually read the thing at the time: it was a bookshelf piece for most people. Those who read it in the 1930s were largely Hitler’s political opponents, who were trying to find out more about their enemy’s belief system.

    • geoff 8.7

      But he has shown extremely poor morals in owning such an item, and he’s not the kind of person who should be leading a political party.

      I hope some other Standardistas come out and condemn this despicable act. I’d be extremely surprised if David Cunliffle or Russel Norman aren’t very critical of Dotcom’s actions tomorrow.

      Is this an example of concern tr0lling? (sorry for using the t-word, LPRENT)

      • Tamati 8.7.1

        That wasn’t my intention

      • MrSmith 8.7.2

        More like a couple of tory twits geoff desperately trying to find someone to beat with a stick after a couple of shit weeks for the blue team.

    • Metiria Turei:

      I think its offensive to own that Mein Kampf as if it is a curious trinket or a money making scheme. Having the right and ability to buy it doesn’t mean its not awful to own something of such historical and traumatic importance.

      https://www.facebook.com/metiria/posts/10152354240279257?stream_ref=1

      • anker 8.8.1

        I rather have Kim Dot Com own a signed copy of Mein Kemp as an investment, than rental properties, which contribute to making housing so unaffordable in NZ

        Ps I am not saying Kim Dot Com doesn’t own rental property, I don’t know.

    • Molly 8.9

      Have a copy somewhere out in the stacks myself. Like Karol, have never read it. But perhaps at some point.

      Wanted to understand how he had so much influence and what his thinking processes were, but having so much difficulty with that in terms of current politicians and media – it’s been put on the back burner. Likely to stay there for a couple of decades.

      • Populuxe1 8.9.1

        I’m guessing it’s not a signed jailhouse edition

        • felix 8.9.1.1

          Does that make it ok for you, Pop?

          • Populuxe1 8.9.1.1.1

            A book for information purposes is quite different from a book owned because it was specially ordered, handled, signed, and gifted by H1tler.

            • felix 8.9.1.1.1.1

              It’s not possible for a person to simultaneously hold all of the conflicting and mutually exclusive opinions you’ve expressed on this topic.

              You just can’t see it now because you’re having a manic episode.

              • Populuxe1

                I’ll thank you to keep your amateur psychological diagnoses to yourself. And none of my opinions are in conflict. Reading the book, even owning an edition is one thing for research purposes is one thing, owning it because it’s a H1tler relic, for whatever reason, is abominable.

                • felix

                  Come back and read the thread in a week or so. I think you’ll be surprised at some of the things you’ve said and the obvious implications of them.

        • Molly 8.9.1.2

          I understand (some) of your concern.

          However, I have more issues with someone’s ownership of a Hummer. Or perhaps those who purchase diamonds – knowing the blood diamond trade is still ongoing. Gold also comes with it’s human cost. Monsanto is a prime example of what investing solely for returns costs the human race – with the high number of Indian farmers committing suicide directly linked to their need for profitability. My point is, there is economic system out there that does not make moral judgements – and proponents of “the market” often laud it for that very reason.

          Unfortunately, the use of the sharemarket often allows too many degrees of separation between investor and consequences or exploitation of their investment vehicles.

          Dotcom owns a “good investment” in the form of a book signed by the author.

          How is that morally different from the decision by shareholders to invest in companies such as Lockheed and Monsanto?

          (Also, I’m guessing Dotcom’s name is on the list of many auction houses, and that he is contacted by a large number of people telling him he should buy certain items because it is a good investment. I suspect his discernment and credibility is at fault with agreeing to purchase. We have an example with his previous relationship with John Banks, to show historical bad judgement )

          • Tracey 8.9.1.2.1

            it’s different cos no one wrote a book saying they were going to make billions of the back of such awful practices… apparently.

            • Populuxe1 8.9.1.2.1.1

              Again? In English? Or sense? Or something?

              • Tracey

                that’s your argument Populuxe. It’s that Hitler wrote down this plan ion this book, executed it (and millions along the way as outlined in his book) and now no one should own a signed copy of it. BUT tobacco companies, brewers, monsanto, diamond dealers and so on… they haven’t written it down for us to see how their plans involved death and destruction so it’s ok?

                • Populuxe1

                  We’re not talking about “tobacco companies, brewers, monsanto, diamond dealers and so on” – or are you so simple you can’t hold an opinion on more than one thing at a time?

                  • no..populux..you the ‘simple’ one..

                    ..unable/unwanting(?) to see any immoral equivalences there..?..eh..?

                    ..with all that has been listed by others..?

                    ..i consider a dairy farmer/factory-owner pouring shit into a river each and every day as far more risible..

                    ..than dotcoms’ownership of this book..(and yes..!..he was a totally evil fuck..!..but it is a ‘book’..paper and print..and yes..!..vile ideas are promoted in it.!..but it is only paper/ink..)

                    ..and would you like a list of others..?

                    ..should we start with ‘the farmers’ weekly’..?

    • whatever next? 8.10

      According to radio, he also has other “collectables” from non nazi leaders, and ? more money than he knows what to do with, so I can park the ” Mein Kamf” ownership, I struggle more with his support of John Banks, alot.

  9. the pigman 9

    Sounds to me like Wayne Tempero or whatever his name is found himself a new, highly-paid gig…

    It is nobody’s business what WW2 relics a person collects, especially a giant man-child with money to burn and a fondness for war gaming like KDC, since he is harming no-one by owning them (privately – it is not like he was the one telling people he owned it).

    • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1

      Im guessing that “gig” will mean hes not here to testify at John Banks trial about the two cheques.

      Coincidence ?

      • the pigman 9.1.1

        Yeah, we’re on the same page GWWNZ.

        Has there been some news on that already?

      • Tracey 9.1.2

        It’s looking that way… the recanting witness? Oh, DotCom is a big bully and he made me say all those things else i would lose my job… Banksie is really the great honest guy he says he is.

        Interesting that working for a guy who owned a Hitler signed book didn’t bother Wayne while he was on the payroll.

    • Murray Olsen 9.2

      It looks like the Armenian guy with the American accent is doing the talking, but then I suppose Tempero has a gag order. Something doesn’t ring true about the Armenian messenger to me. Maybe it’s that all the Armenians I have ever met get much more emotional about Turkey than they do about Hitler. This comes across as just a little staged.

      I have little time at all for Dotcom, but even less for Key and WhaleSpew. I just cannot imagine that Dotcom and his German visitors sat around in the mansion singing the Horst Wessel song and the forbidden verses of Deutschland Uber Alles beneath swastika flags. I think WhaleBlubber might have just jumped the shark on this one. FFS, Dotcom’s blow up tank was Russian, not a Tiger. I think he’s just an overly rich collector. I wouldn’t want his stupid book, but I don’t really care about his having it.

  10. instauration 10

    Our family has had 26.0 lineal metres x 2.0m of bookshelves available for induction into “The Now”.
    Hahh…., Hitler, LBC.,Shirer, Brenner and Classics have all featured. A single title may Inspire – but the forces of evolution will prescribe the prescient Idea.

  11. Sacha 11

    “a party which seems to have as an underlying goal the affecting of our justice system so that Dotcom does not get extradited”

    Fantastic parroting of right-wing lines. You must be so proud.

  12. instauration 12

    Should have mentioned the entire works of Douglas Reed consume 0.7m of a shelf of the bookshelves. Dissent before dissent was cool.

  13. instauration 13

    Last they called it NLP – Now they call it (and acclaim) “Soft Power”

  14. ghostwhowalksnz 14

    Lets not forget the famous incident some years back at a ticket only National party election rally.

    Jenny Shipley was the speaker and when someone stood up to interject they were manhandled by two people and taken out of the building and thrown down some stairs.

    Jerry Brownlee was later convicted of assault in this matter, however one of Brownlees “brownshirts” who assisted him was Slater.

    • Tracey 14.1

      truly? Slater was one of the people helping the person “down the stairs”?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1.1

        Yes, he proudly claimed credit some years back.

        Along with Farrar getting arrested for some pre election stunt, little known facts about the national partys favourite sons

  15. fender 15

    I’d say his main motivation for owning the book is for turning a profit at auction when Kyle Chapman wins Lotto.

    Suppose this means Key has to file off those notches he got for assassinating people.

  16. ghostwhowalksnz 16

    Breaking News….

    John Key has no books at all in HIS library.

    His idea of a good read is the menu at Antoines!

  17. hellonearthis 17

    How many MP’s have owned or read parts of Mein Kampf?
    Really, it’s a collectible and most war memorabilia has had a dubious past.
    Theres no need to go all fascist on the rights of a collector of historic documents.

    • Populuxe1 17.1

      Collectable by what sort of person? It’s perfectly possible to read Mein Kampf without owning
      a signed, special gift edition of the thing.

      • Tracey 17.1.1

        who gets the royalties?

        • Populuxe1 17.1.1.1

          Bavaria. Your point?

          • Tracey 17.1.1.1.1

            “After the war, the American publishing company Houghton Mifflin purchased the U.S. rights to Mein Kampf from the government’s Office of Alien Property for $37,000. Houghton Mifflin would go on to earn $700,000 in royalties over the next 20 years which they ended up donating to charity amid wide public outcry and protest.

            The royalty situation in other countries varied. In the U.K., Mein Kampf was banned from being published from 1945 – 1969, after which all collected royalties were donated to anonymous charities. It turned out to be difficult to find a charity that would accept the royalties since most considered the funds to be blood money. Mein Kampf was unrestricted in other countries and has recently gone on to become a best seller in countries like Sweden, India and Turkey. Those royalties are begrudgingly accepted by the state of Bavaria, then distributed to charity.”

      • Tracey 17.1.2

        maybe it’s worse to want to read it than own it? ;)

  18. One Anonymous Bloke 18

    What self-respecting fascist reads Mein Kampf when everyone knows Atlas Shrugged is where it’s at?

    • miravox 18.1

      Exactly.

    • @ oan..

      aye..!..the vile/dehumanising preachings of the ayn rand…

      ..that portrait of evil that john key is on record of having read..being a fanboy of..

      ..rands’ poison is the (faux)philosophical-underpinnings of the beliefs/practices of key/this govt..

      ..their whole fuck-the-poor! thing..is just following the dictates of rand..

      ..she taught them that the poor are ‘unworthy’ anyway..

      ..so..no reason to ‘care’ about them as all..

      ..i can’t think of a more evil woman in recent times..

      ..the miseries she has spread/facilitated/empowered..

  19. I personally never understood why Mein Kampf was banned. I think it should be compulsive reading. If only to understand what drove a narcissistic psychopath like Hitler.

    In fact I think Dotcom is a wise man. Know your enemy and all that!

    I would also think that books like Butler’s War is a racket should be compulsive reading if only to understand how men like Hitler are used by families such as the Bush family to make money of wars no matter who is right or wrong.

    I think it is interesting that they try to stop Dotcom from partaking in the democratic process every which way no expenses spared. They must be kind a scared of him I think. At least he can put some serious money towards some political counter movement in this country.

    But just to put it all in perspective: While people here cringe about a stupid old book written by a narcissistic psychopath puppet for the global warmongering banking elite our own war mongering Jewish puppet prime minister is supporting a Nazi sympathizing and Antisemitism promoting illegal government in the Ukraine and everybody here just goes with the flow and allows themselves to be manipulated by the MSM while the world is being dragged towards WWIII by the same warmongering psychopathic elite that gave us WWI and WWII!

    • Populuxe1 19.1

      Speaking of frothing at the mouth anti-Semites….

      • travellerev 19.1.1

        What are you implying P?

        John Key calls himself a secular Jew, has shown great sympathy towards Israel which is calling itself Jewish to the point of excluding everybody who is not in what is easily one of the most discriminatory countries, and he has said that he totally supports the new government in Ukraine which is (without any criticism) parroted by the main stream media. The fourth biggest party (38 seats) in new Ukraine government, the Svoboda party is a party based on the legacy of Stepan Bandera who was a Nazi war collaborator during WWII and some of the other leaders have been caught with their pants down with regards to their murderous attitudes towards the Russian population (some 8 million of them) living in Ukraine.

        He is the one identifying as Jewish which to many religious Jews is an insult to real Judaism which they say is a religion and has nothing to do with race, not me.

        And while were at it, you as a man who quite possibly rejects Palestinian claims to the lands illegally stolen from them by the Zionist gang (also rejected by many Religious Jewish groups) are the real Antisemite here. The language of the Palestinians just like that of every Arab nation around Israel is a Semitic language. The people of Israel are mostly import and their primary languages are anything but Semitic.

      • JanM 19.1.2

        Explain the bit you think is anti-Semitic here?

        • Te Reo Putake 19.1.2.1

          “war mongering Jewish puppet prime minister”

          • travellerev 19.1.2.1.1

            As in why is a man who purports to be Jewish, who’s mum had to flee the Nazis to build up a new life here to feel even remotely safe (he’s played that sympathy card many times via the Presstitute media) supporting an illegal Nazi regime which is actively promoting the killing of Jews in the Ukraine. Ya dick! Mentioning the word Jew does not equate antisemitism.

            • Te Reo Putake 19.1.2.1.1.1

              His mother’s religion is irrelevant, Ev. It appears to have little or no effect on Key’s political behaviour and he does not practice the religion. Not everything is a secret conspiracy by our mendacious Jewish overlords and their lapdogs in the illuminati, fool.

              Your bigotry shines through however and it fits perfectly with your other right wing views. And, for the record, the current Ukrainian government is a coalition and the smallest party is definitely nasty, but that does not make them fit your shrill description.

              • felix

                His mother’s religion/ethnicity/whatever is relevant in one important sense, and that is that John Key has deliberately used it, traded on it, as part of his story.

                • Populuxe1

                  When? Seriously, when? When has he ever intimated the Jewishness of his mother is in any way relevant?

                  • felix

                    Settle down there little toot, you’re going to throw a conrod.

                  • Berry, Ruth (25 November 2006). “Will the real John Key step forward”. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 23 August 2007. “if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion. I look at religion as doing the right thing….I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn’t describe it as something that I … I’m not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way.”

                    He goes to church a lot apparently but only because it’s the right thing to do not because he believes in a god or an afterlife. Which in my book makes him a hypocrite of epic proportions.

                    A self proclaimed secular Jew, as in not subscribing to Judaism, who goes to Christian churches because it is the right thing to do and he is also relaxed about it! WTF?

                    It was also important for the Jewish post apparently

                  • Asked for a third time: “Well if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion.

                    “I look at religion as doing the right thing; I don’t define that as someone that goes to church necessarily on a Sunday.

                    “I mean I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn’t describe it as something that I … I’m not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way.”

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10412332

              • Jewish overlords? Jeez!

                No, actually it does have an importance here as John Key has used it in his (un)authorized biography and many other MSM crapola as a “me poor victim made good” story.

                By the way you are all invited to come to my blog and I challenge anyone to find any thing antisemitic or disrespectful towards our fellow Jewish citizens. Criticism of Israel yes, condemning an entire ethnic or religious group for the behavior of a select few no, is my motto and that goes for any group.

                [Deleted. OK to here travellerev - MS]

                • How come everybody knows that his mother as a Austrian Jew fled who from Austria to meet up with papa key and moved here to raise her kids? Oh everybody? Well I’m sure they just found out by accident. Yeah right!

                  Oh, and please point out to me where I support the idea of Jewish overlords ruling us too while you’re at it trying to catch me out!

                  • Populuxe1

                    Because his biography isn’t secret and the interested can go look it up. His father fought against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War too. He doesn’t bring it up in policy press conferences however.

                    • felix

                      Of course he doesn’t bring it up. His father’s political leanings are no doubt a source of great shame to him.

                    • He doesn’t bring any of his parents political leanings up. What with all that leftist fighting fascists in Spain goings on! Explains his dads alcoholism too no doubt. PTSD and all. He must be turning in his grave with his son going to the banking dark side!

                    • veutoviper

                      To follow on from Felix (no reply option to Felix), IIRC Key’s mother was a strong Labour supporter, according to the Herald articles on Key way back in about 2005. Don’t have time to find the link; but it was the long interview based article on his childhood, family etc that is often referred to.

                    • No, actually that saga was spread around like thistle seed in the wind around about the time he was up for election.

                    • ghostwhowalksnz

                      Martyn ( John Keys half brother) remembers his grandparents well, especially George’s mother, Millie. “She was very interested in antique furniture and … went to most big sales including the one held at the German Embassy in London just after the war and bought Goering’s bedroom suite, which was huge,” he says.
                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10522313

                      Goerings Bedroom suite !!!. Surely that trumps a signed copy of Mein Kampf !

                      John Keys father abandoned both his wives and supposedly was in Army intelligence during WW2 as he could speak Russian .

                      Theres more to the guy than we think

                    • ghostwhowalksnz

                      Im just checking British records of the known volunteers who went to Spain.
                      The Security services , as usual, had other reasons for wanting to know these things and these are what is available.

                      As an aside George Orwell is listed under the name Eric Blair

          • Mainlander 19.1.2.1.2

            Woo Hoo new tard comment of the day and thats saying something on this thread

            • North 19.1.2.1.2.1

              No reply tab to Ghost….NZ above so just popping it in here……Goering’s bedroom suite what ???? Now I know a chap out Coatesville way who might be interested in a deal on that one…….it’s still in the shed at Parnell ShonKey ?

      • North 19.1.3

        Pops, what are you going to do about the beastly curators of probably tens of thousands of public/private museums around the world who maintain/preserve/display items reflecting the horrors of history ? What are you going to do about the millions of ghouls who post-war have visited what remains of a madman’s death camps ?

        Promise that when in Cambodia you will not walk into the building’s which contain the thousands upon thousands of human skulls last touched by Pol Pot…….all neatly stacked.

        See the silly corners you paint yourself into when you pass risibly facile comment Pops ? Comment invariably flavoured right rather than left.

        Before you start burning books Pops you might cease your protestions that you’re of the Left and hitch up your right wing petticoat. It remains on show, as always.

        Noting your identification of “frothing at the mouth anti-Semites…..” have a gecko at this Pops -

        http://euromid.org/en/article/505

        Good job I say…….dangerous little bastard…….probably been throwing stones at heavily armed IDF through a hole in that 8 metre wall. Get the plastic cuffs Pops. Very pretty !

        • Tracey 19.1.3.1

          nicely put

        • Populuxe1 19.1.3.2

          I hope you’re not claiming to be a socialist if you can’t tell the difference between public and private ownership

          • felix 19.1.3.2.1

            Yes, publicly owned nazi memorabilia is ok with Pop.

            Noted.
            :roll:

            • Populuxe1 19.1.3.2.1.1

              Maybe you don’t understand how museums work, Felix. Their collecting mandates are public and objective.

              • felix

                *whoosh

              • North

                Question – How many corners has a square room ?

                My answer – Four

                Pops’ answer – An infinite number.

                Question – How come ?

                Pops’ answer – I’m still painting.

                Have a look at this Pops’ – http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/enolagay/

                Oh so after the war this tool of unspeakable human destruction wasn’t ritually ground to dust then ?

                And you can trot along to the museum and look at it with some fascination ? Even take away a litttle fridge magnet maybe ?

                I agree with you Pops’. It’s bloody wrong !

                Some honesty would be great Pops’. You’re nutting on in furtherance of a constructed domestic New Zealand political drama where your facileness permits you to obfuscate.

                • Populuxe1

                  I really do feel like I’m talking to martians sometimes.

                  Museums have a mandate to collect things for the pubic record without passing moral judgment. Most private individuals collect for personal reasons. WHen they are snapping up theunconsidered trifles specifically associated with H1tler, St@lin or P0l P0t for that matter, their personal reasons for doing so come into question, especially if they are aiming for public life or office because then it becomes a matter for the public good.

                  • felix

                    Yeah, there’s no way a private individual could ever collect things without passing moral judgement.
                    :roll:

                    • Populuxe1

                      And yet failing to address the problem of what sort of private individual would be callously narcissistic or sociopathic enough NOT to pass moral judgment on H1tler.

                    • felix

                      Yeah because that’s what owning a book means. It means you totally approve of the morality of the author.
                      :roll:

                  • karol

                    Museums collect what is considered valuable to their societies. Underlying this are various kinds of social values, sometimes with a moral component.

                    Think for instance of European-Pakeha museums that collected material sacred to various Iwi – heads, etc -

                • hellonearthis

                  In a Square room, which is a cude, there are 8 corners.

  20. irascible 20

    I cannot understand why the ownership of an artifact is an issue in informed political debate. Dotcom apparently owns artifacts oce owned by Churchill, Stalin and Hitler. He may even own artifacts once owned by Truman and Wilson as well. He may well own autographed copies of Mao’s Little Red Book, Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and the collected thoughts of John Key.. merely owning and collecting such articles does not mean that he endorses the actions of any of these individuals.
    The beat up and hysteria over the existence of Dotcom’s collection of WWII memorabilia has parallels in the graphic novel- V for Vendetta – in which the ownership of a Koran and works of art proscribed by the dictatorship of Moore’s Thatcherite UK is punishable by death.
    We should not be led by a PR spin company and a politically confused and disturbed blogger into conspiring to discredit an individual because of his collection of historical artifacts.

    • Populuxe1 20.1

      A signed special edition of Mein Kampf is less an item of WW2 memorabilia than a relic of one of th emost horrendous psychopaths of the twehtieth century and the book which launched a genocide of 6 million Jews and about 4 million gays, gypsies and anyone else H1tler didn’t like the look of.

      • swordfish 20.1.1

        “….the book which launched a genocide of 6 million Jews and about 4 million gays, gypsies and anyone else Hitler didn’t like the look of.”

        In what sense did Mein Kampf “launch” the Holocaust ?

        And you do realise, don’t you ?, that there exists an intentionalist school of historians (master plan to enact the Holocaust developed by Hitler in the 20s or 30s and then systematically carried out step-by-step) and a functionalist school of historians (initiative came from the Nazi bureaucracy – due to rivalry between ambitious Nazis and only after moves to expel Europe’s Jewish population had failed). You are taking what would usually be termed an “extreme intentionalist” approach by citing Mein Kampf (which in 694 pages only makes one – somewhat ambiguous in the context of the Holocaust – reference to the killing of Jews).

        Not saying the intentionalist school (whether the moderate or extreme interpretation) is wrong, just that you’re argument is grounded very much in one side of the debate – and at the extreme end of that one side.

        • Populuxe1 20.1.1.1

          There is a reason why Adorno said that Naz1 Germany was caused by bad literature and he wasn’t being sarcastic.

    • karol 20.2

      I am not impressed by Dotcom’s memorabilia collection – signed stuff by Churchill, Stalin, Mein K, etc – is that all he has? or does he have stuff other than that of authoritarian types?

      Yep, it smacks of a smear campaign by the Natz. But it’s not a good look for Dotcom either. It just reinforces my view that Dotcom is one of those libertarians who want to be a powerful top dog.

      He can throw his hat in the political ring if he wants – that’s democracy. But so far I see no reason for me to support Dotcom’s politics and party.

      The left will do better in the election with Lab-Greens-Mana. Dotcom is a distraction from that.

      • Sanctuary 20.2.1

        “…But it’s not a good look for Dotcom either…”

        Why? I collect miniature steam engines. It doesn’t make me a guilty until proven innocent supporter of polluting fossil fuels. It just means I collect steam engines. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

        Are you suggesting we quarantine certain things as unworthy? Perhaps we should destroy them? As David Low’s famous cartoon “Rendezvous” reminds us, Stalin was the equal of Hitler when it came to killing, and Mao possibly topped them both. Shall we set the thought police on anyone who owns a copy of Mao’s little red book? Hitler was an important historical figure of the twentieth century. A fascination with bad people doing doing bad things is hardly unusual, just look at how popular the (to me) mind numbingly boring crime stories of the CI channel are or the horror movie genre is.

        If I had the money of Dotcom I would probably collect a whole host of stuff that would have have people tut tutting over their keyboards. Guns, antique and rare. Big V8 cars. In fire engine red and bold orange and yellow. Steampunk robots to destroy my enemies. Especially the robots.

        Do we really want to create a culture where forensic hatchet jobs via minute examination of the usually banal personal interests of people becomes a new political norm? John Key is a lepidopterist! he kills beautiful creatures for fun! he gloats that he has a rare and endangered butterfly on his study wall! How sick is that guy?

        Will no one think of the children???

        • karol 20.2.1.1

          My judgement of Dotcom is not based solely on the memorabilia he owns, but a raft of things – especially his entrepreneurial endeavors, and the whole public persona he self-promotes – the gamer, the music/video creator/producer. My judgment on his owning memorabilia of political authoritarians is in that context.

          It adds up to a value-set that I do not support.

        • phillip ure 20.2.1.2

          “.. Steampunk robots to destroy my enemies. Especially the robots..”

          ..heh..!

          ..didn’t think i’d find any humour in this thread..

          ..and pretty much + 1 to everything else in that comment..

      • Tracey 20.2.2

        plus 1

    • felix 20.3

      “I cannot understand why the ownership of an artifact is an issue in informed political debate.”

      It’s not.

  21. felix 21

    Most of us twigged that dotcom had nazi sympathies when he donated 50 grand to John Banks.

    Slater must be a bit slow eh?

    • Tracey 21.1

      EXACTLY. BANKS is the only politician proven to have received funding directly from DotCom, but somehow the LEFT are blemished???

      • Pete George 21.1.1

        Len Brown also directly benefited from Dotcom donations.

        [lprent: That is an assertion of fact. Link or retraction please.

        That is an assertion that I have never seen any proof of. It sounds like just another of the Slater's lies. I scanned the published donations/gifts for mayoral candidates in 2010 and again last year. ]

        • mickysavage 21.1.1.1

          Proof please Pete.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.1.1

            I’m going to go out on a limb here, and predict that there isn’t any: Pete George is lying, to draw attention to himself. Again.

            • lurgee 21.1.1.1.1.1

              If so, he certainly got what he wanted, didn’t he?

              Dunno which is worse, his blundering about the internet, or the way everyone screams at him. If he is the attention seeking demi-moron you suggest, why are people giving him the attention he craves?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I think it’s because his bland dishonesty is emotionally reminiscent of the way that good ideas turn to shit.

              • I don’t crave attention. I participate. Others choose to extend it into something it never needed to be.

                In a real life adult conversation if something dubious was said some else would say something like “Are you sure about that?” Reply “Hang on, not sure, maybe not, ah no, mixed things up there” and that would be the end of it.

                But social media is different, especially when petty political agendas are involved.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Not to mention assholes.

                • the pigman

                  You haven’t mixed up The Sky City and The Dotcom again have you, old boy? Remember, Banksie never visited The Sky City with the Dotcom.. he’s a married man after all.

          • Pete George 21.1.1.1.2

            I thought that was the case but may be wrong, if so a mistake. I’ll look into it later when I have time.

            Are you going to ask for proof of everyone else’s claims?

            [lprent: Yes. If someone asserts something as being a fact, then that is requirement of the site that it gets substantiated. Which is why people usually state things as being opinions.

            You're actually being favoured. My usual approach these days is to put them into moderation until that either retract or they provide substantive proof.

            However the next person I see repeating this without proof, then I will start banning. It makes the site liable. ]

            • mickysavage 21.1.1.1.2.1

              Not necessarily but this particular claim is jarring because it has not been made before as far as I am aware and I am sure if there was proof then the nodding heads on the right would repeat it ad nauseum.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.1.2.2

              “I’ll look into it later when I have the time.”

              Plenty of time to tell the lie, no time to withdraw and apologise.

              Passive aggressive, arrogant, self-important, but above all simultaneously mendacious and banal. Boring everyone to death with false trivia.

              • felix

                It’s well known that Pete George has a freezer full of severed heads.

                I may be wrong about that. I’ll look into it when I have time.

              • weka

                +1 OAB

                I would add shit-stirrer and obsessive compulsive thread derailer.

            • weka 21.1.1.1.2.3

              “Are you going to ask for proof of everyone else’s claims?”

              The only claim made was that KDC donated to John Banks. Are you suggesting that this is in dispute or needs proof?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Well, I did claim earlier that Pete is an asshole. I offer his comments on this thread as proof :twisted:

            • mac1 21.1.1.1.2.4

              Pete George, if ever I had respect for your intellectual rigour, it departed with the above comment. You made a specific, authoritative statement unhedged by any uncertainty. Forty minutes later, you admit to doubt about the truth of your first, unequivocal statement.

              First, you made that statement on its own, placed there in rebuttal of another’s argument. If you had any doubt about that statement of yours, it should have been indicated, with some phrase that indicated uncertainty OR you could have done the research yourself before pronouncing.

              Second, failing to do either, you then should have apologised for making such a possible error after pronouncing so authoritatively.

              Thirdly, to take the time to make such a statement in the first place and then say that you haven’t the time to look into its veracity, is very poor form.

              Pete George, this is in a very real sense, your credibility on-line on the line. The fact checker should check his own facts before pronouncement.

              I won’t hold my breath, though, as I know you are very busy.

          • phillip ure 21.1.1.1.3

            i have to grit my teeth..and agree with p.g..there..m.s..

            ..i am pretty sure it is on the public record that he gave to both sides..

            ..that he gave a campaign-donation to len brown.

            [lprent: Not that I have seen, and it'd have been small to be anonymous. ]

            • karol 21.1.1.1.3.1

              I searched and can’t find anything. All I found was that Len Brown and Banks both got donations from SkyCity. That is how I remember it.

              I don’t recall ever seeing anything about Len Brown also getting a donation from KDC.

              • lprent

                Nor do I. I looked at the declarations for both elections for Len Brown and can’t recall anything. If he’d tried to pay silly buggers with concealing such a donation, then I’d have expected to see complaints to the electoral commission and possibly in court with John Banks – who did.

                • alwyn

                  Len was more careful than John Banks.
                  In 2010 he set up a trust to collect most of his donations. That way he didn’t have to reveal where the money came from.
                  This is from the Dec 1, 2010 Herald

                  “Of Len Brown’s total campaign war chest of $581,900 in donations, $499,000 was folded into a single trust to protect the identity of those who gave money to help elect him but wished to remain nameless.”

                  It was quite legal of course, but it certainly made it easy to hide who he might be beholden to. Banks didn’t go to the trouble of setting up a trust. If he had he would have been quite in the clear.

                  • karol

                    I haven’t seen anything to connect Len Brown with Dotcom in the same way as Banks: not helicopter rides to Dotcom Mansion; no videos of Brown with KDC at a celebration, etc, etc.

                    Brown declared his donation from Sky City – as I recall, Banks recorded it as “anonymous”, same as he did for the Dotcom donations.

                    • alwyn

                      I haven’t seen anything either Karol, and I have no reason at all to think it happened. I doubt if Dotcom is the sort to contribute to both sides of the election, although a number of companies used to. Westpac and Fletchers used to make donations to most of the parties in a General Election. The said it was to assist in promoting the debate, which you can take any way you like. After the changes Labour brought in they stopped doing so I believe.

                      However looking at Brown’s 2010 return certainly won’t tell you anything either way. 85% of his donations were hidden away by the trust he used. I am only saying that you can’t tell anything about Brown’s real sources of funds and there is no possibility of a complaint to the Electoral Commission because the use of a trust enabled him to legally not declare them in detail. That was exactly the same way that DC could hide the source of his support in his leadership campaign.

                    • karol

                      alwyn, you could say the same about National Party use of trusts for donations. So no reason to single out Brown or DC in that regard.

                      There’s a strong trail of connections between KDC & Banks. If there had been anything similar between Brown and KDC, I’m pretty sure the right wing smear merchants would have made them public by now.

                      KDC, when in gaol, asked Banks for help, but Banks severed all links with KDC at that point. There is no evidence that KDC then turned to brown for support.

                      Basically, there is no foundation for any accusations of donations by KDC to Brown. KDC’s sympathies seemed far more right leaning, prior to being arrested (an arrest enabled by the Nats) and disowned by Banks.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      …or the National Party, channeling millions of dollars through its various slush funds, no doubt all part of the normal practice by National MPs of using their positions to build lucrative business careers, as Simon Lusk recently detailed and Judith Collins so ably illustrated.

                      Or the way you can buy audiences with John Key through the National Party, or the way you can buy legislation from them, as Sky City did.

                  • lprent

                    Oh I’d agree. The whole process of taking donations needs to be much more transparent both at local level and national level. Just like we need a much longer electoral period that expenditures need to be accounted for. Does anyone apart from the law still think that the election campaign for September 20 haven’t started yet?

                    But the point of my intervention as moderator was because a flat assertion of a fact was stated that I knew wasn’t possible to state with any certainty. DotCom may have contributed to Len’s 2010 campaign. But there is no public way to find out.

                    That makes it an unsubstantiated assertion of a specific fact that makes us liable – which is what I look for. If we didn’t deal with it, then it makes us liable for any damage caused by it.

                    • alwyn

                      I have obviously taken a bit more from your statement than you meant. I took the statement as meaning that since Brown hadn’t declared something, and there hadn’t been complaints to the electoral commission, it was evidence that it hadn’t happened. That wasn’t, as you say here, what you were meaning to suggest.

                    • lprent

                      Sorry, there were several notes and comments. I thought you were referring to my moderator note about unsubstantiated assertions of fact that if incorrect made us liable.

                      You were looking at my comment? The one that said..

                      If he’d tried to pay silly buggers with concealing such a donation, then I’d have expected to see complaints to the electoral commission and possibly in court with John Banks – who did.

                      Unfortunately the lack of transparency that is allowed under the electoral law is far too wide. But the trust approach that Brown used is legal.

                      The “play silly buggers” (typo corrected) was referring to Banks getting the donation split to avoid the requirement to disclose the donor identity which appears to me and the electoral commission to probably be illegal under the act. That is what he is being prosecuted for. Not for taking the donation.

            • miravox 21.1.1.1.3.2

              I think that was Sky City that gave to both Banks and Brown Phil, not Dotcom.

              • ok..i stand corrected..

                ..no doubt the ‘fact-checker’ will be back soon..

                ..with the ‘hard’ evidence..

              • Yes it was Sky City for sure, I thought Dotcom had too but it looks like I was wrong.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Not even wrong, just trivial and vacuous.

                • mac1

                  Not even ‘looks like’, Pete George. You were wrong.

                  As for ‘for sure’, how can we ever be sure with you?

                  Have you figured out yet from the castigation that you have received, how important truth and factuality is to us, and to you?

                  • That’s an ironic comment on a blog like this mac1. Non-truthful claims are often made about me, here and elsewhere (there’s an example on Kiwiblog not long ago).

                    Non-thruthful claims are made here quite often. Sometimes deliberately. If factuality was that important to you here you would be very active challenging comments, wouldn’t you?

                    I accept I may be wrong in this case, but that’s not known for sure. I presume Dotcom didn’t donate an amount below the declarable level which I think is $1500 but it’s possible.

                    Just as it’s not known for sure whether Dotcom donated to David Cunliffe’s leadership campaign trust. As far as I’m aware Cunliffe doesn’t know and Dotcom has denied it, but that does prove facts.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      There’s a difference between claims regarding matters of importance, and claims regarding you.

                      Hint: one is important, and the other is a vacuous midwife to the stillborn.

                    • mac1

                      Pete George, that which is offered as opinion is seen as such. That which is offered as fact should be substantiated. If you’d done either of those two things, then I’d have no problem.

                      I actually don’t have to challenge everything, and that fact that I don’t is not a fault. It’s to do with being selective with one’s own time and energy. In your case, you are not a complete troll or RWNJ, you are educable, and in terms of the position you hold as fact checker supremo, it is very important that you act correctly.

                      You still don’t seem to get, from reading what you have written to me, that you cannot with honesty and regard to intellectual rigour write something as a pronouncement of fact when you are not even sure of it yourself.

                      Your last paragraph is a poor attempt at diversion and justification. My issue with you is not even about Dotcom. It’s about how you approach the writing of fact and opinion.

                      Your last sentence does not make sense.

                    • @ oan..

                      ..heh..!

                    • mac1 – you seem to be confusing what I might do elsewhere with what happens on comments threads like this where it’s common for comments to be tossed into the mix without double checking every phrase for accuracy.

                      I could try to be totally accurate and provide references with absolutely everything I typed everywhere but I don’t see why that should be necessary.

                      Mixing it on different forums is a good way to keep in touch with things. It’s odd that you think I should act one way everywhere.

                      [lprent: It doesn't matter with your role elsewhere. It is your role here that I get concerned with.

                      ...without double checking every phrase for accuracy.

                      Ah no. Flatly stating something as being fact with word expressing certainty attracts my attention (and often that of everyone else) because you are saying you know this with 100% precision. I notice it because if it is not commonly known fact then it is guaranteed to be a diversionary flamewar starter in the comment stream. More often that not it comes from some notable and professional liar like Cameron Slater or other PR spinners.

                      I take the view (similar to the legal rules on defamation) that expressing something with that degree of certainty means that you are both responsible for proving the truth of the assertion and are willing to suffer the penalty if you were less than truthful or were too lazy to check. The usual penalty here is a prompt and extended boot (with a lot of educational malevolence from moderators) from commenting on the site to discourage the use of the false fact technique.

                      It depends on how you express it. If you are uncertain or if you are merely reflecting the speculation of others or if it is speculation/opinion on your part, then it is up to you to make sure that others are aware that is the case.

                      You do this by expressing your level of uncertainty and/or the likely source of the information. This allows others to assess the probability of you being correct and provides a point for them to investigate from. They often do.

                      That level of precision enhances debate and takes no time at all - after all if you're making a statement then you should know where it came from. Making flat assertions of fact when you are uncertain just wastes my time ]

                    • Tracey

                      “Just as it’s not known for sure whether Dotcom donated to David Cunliffe’s leadership campaign trust. ”

                      We also don’t know for sure if DotCom ever donated to Dunne, UF, National, John Key or ACT.

                      Maybe just make sure that when you write something you premise it with something to distinguish the words to follow from postulation of fact.

                      Words are powerful, misuse them at your peril.

                    • wtl

                      PG:
                      So much for being a fact checker. So it turns out that you were wrong. Instead of apologising and admitting you were wrong, you say “I may be wrong in this case, but that’s not known for sure”. In other words, you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for a fact that you reported but you refuse to withdraw that comment and hide behind the excuse that you can’t be 100% certain that it didn’t happen even if there is no evidence for it.

                      This exchange has confirmed everything I thought about you. You are simply unable to admit fault and do a mea culpa, and instead lash out and blame others when it is pointed out. You have not changed one bit. I have zero faith in you and your new role as Politicheck NZ editor. I’m sure I am not the only one here with that opinion.

                    • Tracey

                      WTL

                      Pete appears to be stating that on this site he doesn’t need to check his facts or even know the facts, he can post them as though they are facts.

                      he didn’t say “I thought Len Brown got money from DotCom”. BUT he could have.

                      I wonder when he will “get” that if you wear multiple hats its actually easier to lop one of the heads off.

                    • wtl – I didn’t claim to be fact checking here, in fact I wasn’t, that’s why I got something wrong (and poor memory on something). Others called me on something I said, good on them for that. That’s when forums like this can work well.

                      Trying to claim that making a mistake means a bunch of things that are irrelevant is forums not working so well, or perhaps other agendas are involved.

                      [lprent: I prefer that people don't make flat claims of fact unless they are really really really sure. After all I have to check the damn things myself when I'm moderating. The phrases like "I think", "I believe", "It is my understanding" or a link, while weakening a persons statement from fact to opinion, also reduce my workload. The alternative is me making a way to lighten my workload in a way that people find memorable. ]

                    • Tracey – I think facts are important, but in every social media situation it’s not practical to be 100% sure of everything you say. Or do you think that is what everyone should aim for before posting any comments?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Transparently self-serving bad faith weasels get to dictate fuck all, least of all how being a transparently self-serving bad faith weasel affects your credibility.

                    • mac1

                      Pete George, I am not confused, except by your final sentence to which I have already referred.

                      Eight hours ago you made a statement, on this site, the Standard, with which many commenters have had issues. You do not seem to be able to say, sorry got that wrong, shouldn’t have been so quick to put forward opinion as fact.

                      I am not sure that you understand the issues involved. I hope you will do. They strike at your credibility.

                      That’s enough of my time.

                    • mac1 1 – I’ve said I was wrong more than once.

                      lprent – I thought I was right when I first said it. I wasn’t, I got facts mixed up. That such a big deal is made of this amongst everything that’s said each day here is kinda weird don’t you think? While other Standard rules seem to be continuously ignored with impunity.

                      [lprent: You did rather let yourself in for other people's attention with the "fact checker" role.

                      But when I'm moderating I always notice flat assertions of fact. It is the second most common reason for me warning/banning people.

                      Sure I don't catch everything, but examples please if you want to assert that. I'll explain why I would or wouldn't notice something when I spot your comments on moderation sweeps.

                      However please check your examples first to try to figure it out first and explain why you'd think it was an issue. The trick is to think about the welfare of this site with suppressing stupid behaviour rather than the welfare of your political issues.

                      I have noticed in the past that you appear to want to make up / reinterpret our policies so they conform with the way you'd like us to run the site for your benefit. Your consistently dumb interpretations on your own site in obsessive posts being the most obvious example. I do find it rather tiresome that someone can't learn from previous mistakes. ]

                    • McFlock

                      Len Brown also directly benefited from Dotcom donations.

                      [... tum te tum te tay ...]

                      I accept I may be wrong in this case, but that’s not known for sure. I presume Dotcom didn’t donate an amount below the declarable level which I think is $1500 but it’s possible.

                      Just as it’s not known for sure whether Dotcom donated to David Cunliffe’s leadership campaign trust. As far as I’m aware Cunliffe doesn’t know and Dotcom has denied it, but that does prove facts.

                      I love the way that you’re cool with basically making shit up on the grounds that you didn’t explicitly announce that you were “fact checking”.

                    • wtl

                      I never said you were fact checking. My point was that anyone who had a strong regard for facts (presumably an important character for a ‘fact checker’) would:

                      1) Not make statements of fact without having a reasonable basis to believe that the fact is true (hint: more that a vague ‘feeling’ or ‘memory’).
                      2) Unconditionally withdraw any statements proven to be false based on available evidence (“I may be wrong in this case, but that’s not known for sure” doesn’t cut it. How about “Yes, I was wrong. I withdraw that statement. There is no evidence that Len Brown accepted any donations from Kim Dotcom.”).

                • Tracey

                  Being wrong is ok. Posting something as though it is fact without trying to remind yourself of said fact is…

                  Like Wayne Mapp reading WO and KB and using a phrase like if only half of what is said is true… I despair for our society when truthful information is like russian roulette.

        • Tracey 21.1.1.2

          but it’s not len brown being blemished it’s mana, Labour and Greens, for osme bizarre reason.

          headline could have been

          Banks received money from Mein Kampf owner…. but it wasn’t and isnt.

  22. Philj 22

    Xox
    Well that book worked beautifully! Just another distraction from really serious stuff.

  23. George D 23

    To answer the first question: No.

    Ask yourself this – would there also be a significant media reaction if the leader of another political movement had a signed copy of a first edition Mein Kampf dedicated to the man Hitler shared a cell with? The answer is yes.

    John Key? Yes.
    David Cunliffe? Yes.
    Metiria Turei? Yes.
    Russel Norman? Yes.
    Peter Dunne? Yes.
    Hone Harawira? Yes.
    Tariana Turia? Yes.
    Jamie Whyte? Yes.
    etc, etc.

    This is a political story, because it speaks to the judgment and character of the owner, and situates him in a context. Yes, the story was shopped to the right agents, but you can’t complain when someone gives a journalist a ready-made story.

    • Tracey 23.1

      in storage in europe.

      Cunliffe’s economic announcement made lower right of page 21 of the Herald….

      THAT was also a ready-made story.

      Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. People can be though.

      • weka 23.1.1

        Timing is pretty suspicious too.

        • George D 23.1.1.1

          Of course it’s suspicious.

          The alleged Nazi-lover is starting a political party.

          • lprent 23.1.1.1.1

            Ummm. What is his name – Kyle Church?

            Believe it or not doing so actually being a nazi loving bigot isn’t a crime. You can and people do start parties.

            For that matter being a greenie in some circles carries similar level of stigmas. You should have seen the reactions when I told people I’d voted for values in the 1978 election.

  24. drum 24

    Does this mean I should get rid of my copy of Mao’s six essays on military affairs? Sabin’s “story” is an absolute nonsense!

  25. ianmac 25

    A signed copy of Mein Kampf is an investment purchase in Kim’s eyes.Pretty simple really. A piece of greenstone, a painting, a book, a vintage car or whatever. These would be very valuable should they come up for auction again as did Kim’s book when he bid and won it.

    • Populuxe1 25.1

      Then if his sense of empathy and morality is that relative, I don’t want him near politics. There’s enough of that as it is.

    • lurgee 25.2

      “A signed copy of Mein Kampf is an investment purchase in Kim’s eyes.”

      If that is the case, then it is newsworthy and worth reporting.

      I would like to know about it, as someone buying a book written by that squalid little hatemonger as an ‘investment’ is not someone I would consider voting for. The murder of 6 million Jews and 6 million others reduced to a smart investment decision. Classy investment, .com.

  26. MaxFletcher 26

    Who cares? I’d be most happy to own such a piece of historical interest. There are many other things about Dotcom I don’t like but this is irrelevant and basic sensationalism.

    • Richard Christie 26.1

      .
      I’d be most happy to own such a piece of historical interest.

      Me too, if KDC wants to divest himself of it and pass it on (gratis), I won’t say no, nor to his Churchill stuff and other items.

  27. Not a fan of.com and for obvious reasons, such as him, in my opinion, being a rich prick that exhibits the worst of excesses, who donates to tossers like Banks for political favour and tries to ingratiate himself to the NZ public with talk of a new undersea cables and free internet to serve his own ends.

    Yes he was spied on illegally, yes the 3 news story is a beat up, but end of the day he’s an arsehole for owning a signed copy of the nazi handbook, and yes he’s a criminal who deserves to be held accountable for his megaupload site in a court of law in the states.

    The sooner this man is out of our country, the better. When/if he clears his name, then all well and good, he can come back with clean mitts as a kiwi ‘comrade’.

    Until then, he’s toxic, politically and morally.

    • Murray Olsen 27.1

      Why does he have to clear his name? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, not dirty of name as soon as charged and made the centre of an illegal operation and expected to be deported for something which our deportation treaty doesn’t even cover, and relying on one of the worst justice systems in the world for a fair trial? It’s a lovely path we go down when we deny people rights on some spurious arsehole quotient.

      • The Al1en 27.1.1

        He doesn’t have to clear his name, he can mangle the political system of NZ and find any way possible to get out of having his day in court if he likes. If I were innocent I’d fight it all the way with everything I had, not try and weasel out of it. Bet he knows he’s guilty and he’s trying to buy his freedom in NZ off the backs of the gullible and easily led.

        Mega has dodgy copyrighted material for download, right now, just like megaupload did, so I don’t need a u.s judge to pronounce him guilty.

        • Murray Olsen 27.1.1.1

          Innocent or guilty, I would not go anywhere near an American court.

          By the way, I have very little time for the guy, but the principles of justice must exist even for those I despise, or they don’t exist at all. To me, that’s the bottom line.

          • Mirrie 27.1.1.1.1

            I totally agree. The Court findings have already been decided, there is no way KDC is going to get a fair hearing. Fairness would have allowed his legal representatives to see all the evidence against him, not just a summary. What is happening is not justice, which is why, despite having no real regard for the man, I support his efforts to not be extradited.

  28. Tracey 28

    Meanwhile another recent citizen of NZ, also a foreigner, is on charges of domestic violence against his mother in law and wife… we really need to put diversity aside and stop all migrants.

    Frankly, DotCom and this guy Liu and others show what can happen when you base an immigration policy on the philosophy of

    “If you have shitloads of money you must be good for our country.”

    • The Al1en 28.1

      Recent citizen means he can’t be a foreigner, he’s a New Zealander now, unless you mean recent resident.

      And lol @ “we really need to put diversity aside and stop all migrants”

      Tarring with the same brush much?

      • Tracey 28.1.1

        it was tongue in cheek… MY point is that while we choose some migrants on the basis of “they have shitloads of money so they must be good people”, shit will happen and we shouldnt be surprised..

        • The Al1en 28.1.1.1

          I thought it was, but posted any way.

          I agree, money doesn’t = legit, and nope, not surprised at all.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1.1.1.1

            In fact, the reverse is true: wealth tends to degrade personal ethics. cf: Piff et al 2012.

    • Mirrie 28.2

      It has yet to be proven that KDC is not good for this country, or at least any less good than any other person. What ever happened to the innocent until proven guilty premise? It appears we have all bought into the PM’s fear mongering propaganda. Until such time has it is proven that KDC has broken the laws of this country, I prefer to keep an open mind.

  29. North 29

    Beware Potty Gower…….Sabin’s amping. Your job’s in his sights.

  30. Yabby 30

    There is nothing normal about anyone who collects Nazi paraphernalia and there is something deeply disturbing about a German who does so, especially if, as he says he doesn’t support their ideology. There is so much to disrespect about this man – for starters I have no truck with copyright breach, feel he’s only out for himself and that he will entertain any political marriage that could stop his extradition. It surprises me anyone can apologise for him at any level.

  31. bad12 31

    Nazi sympathizer, this seems the inference, the picture so to speak that is the underlying if unsaid narrative surrounding DotCom’s ownership of Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s little recipe for social engineering circa 1930′s German Prison walls,

    It doesn’t quite work for me this ‘inference’,and why is best put first as a question, ”Does DotCom have this book, apparently one of the first copies of Mein Kampf said to have been signed by Hitler himself, encased in a prominent place at the Mansion, perhaps He pulls this copy of Mein Kampf out for a quick browse on those rainy Sunday afternoons”,???,

    Well no, according to DotCom the book is in safekeeping with a personal friend of His in Europe so it is hardly an item he has access to on any given day,

    The attempt here to portray DotCom as ‘the Dark Villian’,and, while they attempted this, the TV3 news also roped in Slippery the Prime Minister as ‘the White Knight’ pointing out that the Mum of the PM as a Jew had had to flee Nazi Germany and that many of the PM’s relatives on Mum’s side of the family had been killed by the Nazi regime,(without i might ad a shred of actual proof),

    Can you all not see just how ‘Manipulated’ this little tale is,???, its the perfect knee-jerk reaction, i would suggest manufactured hastily up on the Beehives 9th floor, at the thought that the Mana Party might come to an ‘electoral arrangement’ with the DotCom Party, and, we all know who the first casualty would be should such an arrangement come to pass,???,

    Just who, among those named so far in my little comment has the Nazi sympathies,???, or to put the question another way, just who in the coming months is Slippery the Prime Minister having over for dinner,

    Geez, forget having over for dinner, just who is the Slippery little Shyster going to be falling all over in an elongated trail of publicity stunts spraying drooling idiocy over our TV screens for political advantage, if not part of a family that has by blood and inclination links traceable back to the very heart of the Nazi German regime of Adolf Hitler,

    Yes you guessed it, the half-German house of Windsor are sending over the Grandchild and Great-Grandchild of Prince Phillip, husband of the current Queen, He who at age sixteen was pictured attending the funeral of His sister married to a prominent Nazi surrounded by the German elite of the time all decked out in their best Nazi regalia,(he had 3 others, sisters that is,all married to prominent members of Hitler’s regime),

    From George Vl to Edward Vlll,(he who abdicated),to that little red haired dickhead of a princeling, what-his-face, partying it up in His Afrika Corps uniform complete with swastika, all of them right through the lineage either overtly or covertly have been shown to either be racist,
    (Charles and the slitty eyed Chinese remark),or, sympathetic to the Nazi Ism,

    So please,please, spare us all such faux out-rage about the possession by DotCom of this copy of Mein Kampf and i know this is too much to ask but cannot you all get past this mentality fed to you by the organs of brainwashing that the war against the Nazi’s was anything but the elites of Europe, having done so down through history, simply using us as the pawns in their insane power games, sacrificing us in an orgy of bloodletting,

    The real story here, far from being the ‘White Knight’ as depicted by the TV3 story on DotCom’s possession of this book, is that Slippery the Prime Minister has invited members of the Family, supposedly the number one family of dear old England, over for dinner and a very long personal tongue bath from the Prime Minister himself, and, from GeorgeV1 right down to the current generation their Nazi sympathies have been well exposed…

    • Populuxe1 31.1

      F*ck! That was almost as entertaining as one of Ev’s nutty rants. How would you feel if he had Te WHiti’s shackles on his coffee table?

      • bad12 31.1.1

        Fuck, your comment is even more nutty than what SSLands regularly spews into the pages of the Standard,

        Whats ‘nutty’ about it Populuxe1, do you deny that the British Royal Family(spit),are not half German???, or do you deny that leading up to the second world,(act of mass murder)war and during that war that that Royal Family(spit), had ongoing contact with the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler,

        Such contact with the Nazi regime and sympathy for Nazi-ism wasn’t confined to just the Royals, a number of Lords and Sirs along with the commoner wife of the Duke of Windsor,(formerly King Edward VIII befor the abdication), were also said to be Nazi sympathizers and had contact with members of the Nazi regime throughout the war,

        (ask me nicely, in light of your comments being so ‘fact free’, and i might begin the tiresome task of putting up a series of links which expose both the Nazi sympathy and the contact with the Nazi regime a number of the British elite,(including ‘Royals’), had throughout that war)…

        • bad12 31.1.1.1

          PS Populuxe1, Te Whiti’s shackles, if that artifact is in fact what it is claimed to be are meaningless pieces of metal to me,

          Te Whiti’s people carry around those shackles in their wairua…

        • Populuxe1 31.1.1.2

          Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands married a German, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and when the Luftwaffer were flying over Den Hague he was up on the palace roof with an anti-aircraft gun shooting at them. Prince Philip served in the British Royal Navy against Germany, and actually he’s technically of Greek and Danish ancestry if that’s going to be important. The British Royal Family have been British at least since George III regardless of what their ancestry might be. Yes, I’m well aware of the issues of Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor, much of which had to do with Wallis Simpson being a Nazi spy, which is why Elizabeth the Queen Mother hated her. And of course Churchill made it impossible for him to continue to be king and some romatic guff about his true love for the Simpson devil-woman was cooked up.

          I suppose you think all Germans supported H1tler as well? What a simplistic notion, but typical for you.

          You might as well say the same thing about the Irish and their strangely one-sided version of neutrality that opened all their ports to German submarines.

          • bad12 31.1.1.2.1

            What a pathetic tactic of debate Poopuluxe1, actually its the debating tactic of the fucking simpleton, ‘wing-nuts’ use such all the time,

            First you ‘suppose’ something i do not think at all, then you go on to chastise me based upon that false assumption,

            i suppose you have syphilis of the brain which leads you to make such false assertions…

            • Populuxe1 31.1.1.2.1.1

              You mean presenting examples that show you to be full of more shit than a blocked public toilet?

              • bad12

                Presenting examples, Poopuluxe you simply present me with examples of propaganda, that which was used to ‘white-wash’ the name of the Royal family of England in a rush to Anglicize the name so the peasants wouldn’t click on to the fact that when they took the ‘King’s Shilling’ they were in reality marching off to be slaughtered in a real life version of a computer war game,played between closely related Kings,

                Prince Phillip is ‘technically’ of Greek and Danish decent???, ha ha ha only if you use LIES as the technique to postulate that this is so,

                Phillips Mother was a German from the House of Battenberg, German royals to the core,

                From the other side, the Queen herself was born into the English branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the main branch of German royalty,

                Interbreeds??? you bet Prince Phillip is the Queens third cousin from one side of the family and second cousin from the other,

                Until 1917 the British Royal family were all born into the name Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in Fear in 1917 this name was hastily expunged in favor of the more English Windsor,

                Is your shallow research Poopuluxe the result of the wish to spread deliberate propaganda or just the result of natural stupidity…

                • bad12

                  Oh and Lest We Forget Poopuluxe, Phillips Daddy???Yes this Prince Phillip you assign Greek and Danish technical birth to,

                  Phillips Daddy belonged to the House of Scheswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, who would have thunk it, this ‘House’ is also known as the House of Gluckburg which is a German ducal House,

                  The House of Windsor, formerly known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is said to be a ‘cadet member’ of the House of Gluckburg and the Royal Houses of Denmark and Greece ‘jumior members’ of that same German House of Gluckburg,

                  The hatred of the Soviet regime, the 50 years of propaganda, cold and dirty wars???wouldn’t have been directly fermented by these ‘Royal Houses’ would it???, it just so happens that Phillips 3 sisters married into the Russian branch of the ‘family firm’,

                  All 3 of them executed along with the Romanov’s during the Russian revolution, the peasants were definitely revolting then were they not,(i couldn’t resist the pun),

                  Would you like me to provide you the family links between that Russian royal family(extinct), and, those of England/Germany…

      • North 31.1.2

        You were saying about ‘shackles’ there Pops………would you Mr Zionist Exceptionalism care to comment on these shackles ? You had the chance above but you didn’t. Or perhaps Mr ShonKey Python Exceptionalism himself given his claimed whakapapa -

        http://euromid.org/en/article/505

        • Populuxe1 31.1.2.1

          Oh fuck off. I am on record being very clear on this site that I hate Bibi and his Likudnik hawks with a passion. I hate zionists. I hate libertarians even more, and the only thing I hat emore than either are libertarian zionists or zionisit libertarians.

    • karol 31.2

      Bad, you make some very good points, especially about the Royals.

      And it is interesting that the focus is on Dotcom’s ownership of Mein Kampf, while I have misgivings about his ownership of a trio of items from authoritarian types.

      I am dreading all the PR hype for the royals visit, with Key going for the smile-and-wave photo ops, and few in the MSM querying the associations with autocratic rule, imperial power and various kinds of genocidal nastiness.

      • bad12 31.2.1

        Lolz Karol, in my little trawl through the relevant literature available on-line, by no means in depth, i come across some quite startling stuff,

        i was tempted to put up the link to one particular site,(hangthebanksters.co),i think was the site that even if half true portrays the Royal family as an interbred hot-bed of child-molesters,murderers of their own, and only too willing to stuff the ‘bad results’ of what is said to be interbreeding of a far too close nature into the assylum, and they are commenting upon the actions of last century,

        my decision not to post the link was more the outrageous style of writing which might have put off a hell of a lot of readers,(although there was enough links to authors of books and other web based information to at least give them the whiff of credibility),

        A real eye-opener i came across was the school in Scotland that a Nazi educator was invited to establish in the 1930′s(as the Nazi ism took hold of Germany),and its ‘star’ pupil???, none other than Prince Phillip later to become Husband to the Queen,

        Death camps, were an invention of the British during the Boer war, admittedly these were small scale when compared to the industrialized slaughter employed by the Nazi regime,but, i would suggest that had that Boer war continued for longer the Brits would have got round to such excesses of scale,

        To the present, if we are looking for a parallel to the invasions of Nazi Germany we need look no further than the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent toppling of regimes and civil war in Syria lead by the US,

        i choose to draw no conclusions from DotCom’s ownership of war memorabilia, millions of people all over the world are collectors of such stuff, the difference being DotCom has the where with all to be able to buy up pieces from infamous leaders,

        For years i was fascinated, having had a grandfather and father serve in the two memorable conflicts of last century, with reading about such war experiences from a soldiers point of view, much of the reading i accomplished surrounding the second world war was from the point of the German soldier, particularly the penal battalions, does this make me a Nazi sympathizer, far from it i would suggest, i am pretty much anti-war,

        Yes i too am dreading Slippery the Prime Minister’s little ‘dances with Nazi’s’ display leading into the 2014 election along with the fawning press’s representation of such a side-show to the New Zealand people, the right has no shame when it comes to clinging to power, should the DotCom Party manage to align its policy closely to that of the Mana Party and make an electoral promise not to give support to National,while admitting there is an inherent risk in such a strategy, i could see such an alliance being the difference in whether or not we have a change of Government and while i am in wait and see mode could well support such an electoral compromise between Mana and DotCom…

        • Richard Christie 31.2.1.1

          Death camps, were an invention of the British during the Boer war, admittedly these were small scale when compared to the industrialized slaughter employed by the Nazi regime,but, i would suggest that had that Boer war continued for longer the Brits would have got round to such excesses of scale,

          Still a gross overstatement. Concentration camps were operated by British during the Boer war, not “Death Camps”.

          In Germany death camps later evolved from the concentration camps. Germany’s first concentration camps such as Dachau were not initially death camps. That came years later.

          British camps,were not designed to systematically kill their inmates.

          See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Shift_in_meaning

          • bad12 31.2.1.1.1

            Yes i agree with you, excuse me for not taking the time to publish the subtle differences between the occurrences of death/concentration camps,

            As you point out the first camp’s established by the Nazi’s were also not designed as a machine of mass extermination and disposal of the remains of the victims and i would suggest that such were established simply on the basis of what the Nazi’s seen as a ‘need’,

            My point being above that had the Boer war ground on for a lot longer than it did, and the British were ‘swamped’ with combatant prisoners they eventually would have arrived at a ‘solution’ much in the same vein as that the Nazi’s did….

            • Stuart Munro 31.2.1.1.1.1

              The Boer War camps were not a completely British invention – there was the precedent of the ACW camps for confederate prisoners – and they too had their forerunners.

      • Populuxe1 31.2.2

        Do tell what direct authority the Queen actually has, Karol?

        • karol 31.2.2.1

          Do tell what direct authority the Queen actually has, Karol?

          I said “associations with”…

          Part of the associations are historical. Now, part of the role of the Royals is to validate a system of aristocratic privilege. That is seen in the make up of their governance, especially the House of Lords, but also in the dominance of MPs with upper/ upper-middleclass backgrounds. That adds up to a pretty powerful system, that, overtime has done some pretty murderous things.

          I see you had to qualify “authority” with the word “direct”.

          • Populuxe1 31.2.2.1.1

            So none. The symbols hurt your fee fees.

            • karol 31.2.2.1.1.1

              Say what? Sliding off into irrelevance there, pop.

              What you asked for was not relevant to my original comment…. but actually I then did provide evidence of the direct authority you asked for anyway (@ 8.22pm. – but you seem to have ignored it.

    • Te Reo Putake 31.3

      Good comment, Bad12. One small correction; it was his Dad, Philip, that made the racist comment. Charles is probably the best of a bad bunch (liberal, greeny, no fan of modern architecture etc.).

    • lurgee 31.4

      You understand that attending your sister’s funeral in 1937 is not quite the same as being a Nazi, or even a Nazi sympathizer? And that Philip served with distinction in the war – on the Not Nazi side?

      Philip might be a revolting old reactionary – I think that generally goes with being royal – but he rejected Nazism unequivocally and bravely.

      Weird how attending your sister’s funeral, before the scale of Nazi evil was known, is taken as evidence of Nazi sympathy; but owning a copy of Hitler’s book, signed by the man himslef, in the full knowledge of the evil the Nazis perpetuated, is not.

      By all means condemn Philip and the Windsors if you wish to; but be consistent and apply the same ‘reasoning’ to .com.

      • Tracey 31.4.1

        the head of the jewish council said he owns a copy and what is important is

        IF YOU THINK WHAT HITLER WROTE IS RIGHT? YOU AGREE WITH HIS IDEAS?

        • Populuxe1 31.4.1.1

          He owns a copy, not a signed first edition jailhouse gift copy, the second signed, presented to H1tler’s cellmate, however.

          Can you actually get beyond the content and think about the fucking book as a fucking object?

          • bad12 31.4.1.1.1

            Thats pretty pathetic don’t you think, you see nothing wrong with the head of the Jewish Council having a copy but condemn DotCom for the same thing,

            a vein of hypocrisy is becoming evident running through your comments in this Post…

            • lurgee 31.4.1.1.1.1

              It’s not having a copy of Mien Kampf as such; its the fact it is a very specific, Fuhrer signed copy, which makes it suggestive of something more than just an interest in a particularly unpleasant mind. It suggests some degree of fetish.

              The ‘collecting memorabilia’ defence might clear .com of Nazi sympathises but is still a gross breach of taste. It’s like having a cushion stuffed with hair from concentration camp victims: only a sick mind would want such a thing.

              • bad12

                Oh bullshit lurgee, DotCom has publicly stated he bought the thing for its investment value,

                You could i suppose suggest that He is lying, but, that would just be meaningless drivel,

                Tens of 1000′s of people all round the world collect war memorabilia and pay good money to do so, are they all Nazi’s,

                Gods sake, has DotCom expressed an interest in owning pillows stuffed with human hair…

                • lurgee

                  Read what people post before posting your ravings. I pointed out that buying it as memorabilia would probably clear him of Nazi sympathies.

                  Weirdly, in your warped little world, fighting Nazis isn’t enough to clear Philip of the same.

                  With regards .com, as I said, whether as part of a collection or as an investment, it is a grossly tasteless thing to buy. Making money off ghoulish interest Hitler is tacky and nasty; someone doing that deserves to be exposed so people can decide if they still want anything to do with someone that lousy.

                  I didn’t suggest he did have an interest in owning pillows stuffed with human hair; you understand how comparisons work, don’t you?

                  • Populuxe1

                    Actually, lurgee, it would apear bad doesn’t understand how comparisons work. Or arguments. Or facts. Or logic.

                  • the pigman

                    “I didn’t suggest he did have an interest in owning pillows stuffed with human hair; you understand how comparisons work, don’t you?”

                    For fuck’s sake. You compared KDC’s collecting of memorabilia such as autographed MK with it when you said “It’s like having a cushion stuffed with hair from concentration camp victims: only a sick mind would want such a thing.”

                    Bad was pointing out that yours was a shitty, apples-and-oranges comparison. So no more faux outrage, and don’t try and pretend it wasn’t a comparison you were making…

  32. shorts 32

    Is it the book, the fact its autographed by Hitler, the contents of the book or the events that Hitler was central to in the years post writing the book that offends?

    Is it so bad to have the book as an investment or holding shares in a unethical company – say a weapons manufacturer that sells weapons to countries/organisations we don’t like?

    Whatever the rational judging by many peoples response online to this the spin doctors have just ensured the public’s interest and support for dotcom has just gone up a notch – he’s being bullied again…. we don’t like that

    When do the book burnings start?

  33. Watching 33

    Reading through the comments above – I am going really.

    It all about association & Nazi stuff is a killer. Give me an example of a politician who has been associated with any Nazi connection (i.e. wearing a uniform to a dress up party) & survived.

    MS who started the thread said it was a distraction. This maybe true for those politically involved but to the non political engaged voting population the message is Dotcom – Nazi – mixing with politicians.

    • mickysavage 33.1

      I said that the story has distracted from Parata’s woes which it has, and that Dotcom is a political distraction.

      I agree with you about how this may be a fatal blow to Dotcom’s political aspirations and that the smear is more damaging than the detail. But the tactics of the smearer should also be analysed.

      • Watching 33.1.1

        MS – this is how politics is run..

        If its sport or business or negotiations between parties or your world of law/courts you cannot complain if the other side does not adhere to how you see things should be done. Remember Graham Henry in the lead-up to the RWC2007 saying that the AB’s would be ready with some hard test against quality opposition from France and South Africa – what happen is that France and SA turned up with teams missing their world cup players & we know what happen next.

        To the Nats this is not a distraction as the story had been Dotcom gunning for Key. Now the story is Key of Jewish descent being run down by Dotcom + Nazi + associated with Hone, Russel and a few others.

        MS – whenever the word distraction comes up in politics it only applies to one side. I would suggest that Key has fatally flawed Dotcom in the the Dotcom v Key story. Anything Dotcom say now would always bring up the Nazi association – it will never go away. From the Nats point of view this is not a distraction it about the long game.

        I am sure Labour will do things that the Nats call a distraction from the main story.

      • Puckish Rogue 33.1.2

        Micky I pity you.

        “If Kim wants to respond perhaps now is a good time for him to release details of any pre raid meetings he may have had with John Key.”

        He has no details, nothing, Dot Con is a fraudster, a con man and you still can’t (don’t want to?) see it

        • Mike S 33.1.2.1

          Really??? No Details??? Hahaha you know as much about Mr DotCom as Lurgee does about old Phillip, which is fuck all.

    • shorts 33.2

      whilst not a politican dressing up in a nazi uniform hasn’t seemed to harm Prince Harry too much

      Dressing up as one vs owning a book is I feel quite different – plus remember this is NZ not Europe

      We condemn Dotcom for owning a book, whilst our neighbours run actual concentration styled camps and we say bugger all hmmmmm

      • Tracey 33.2.1

        yup. That’s different.

      • Populuxe1 33.2.2

        Were you in a coma for the media furore and his fulsome apology and penance?

        • Tracey 33.2.2.1

          “whilst our neighbours run actual concentration styled camps and we say bugger all hmmmmm”

          • Populuxe1 33.2.2.1.1

            Don’t know about you, but I’m quite vocal on the subject

            • Tracey 33.2.2.1.1.1

              I cant say I have seen or heard anything from you on it Populuxe. But good on you if you are using your position of academic credibility to rail to the media and our parliament to put pressure on our neighbours.

        • North 33.2.2.2

          Pops’ – your comment re Harry in Nazi drag @ 33.2.2 – “……the media furore and his ‘fulsome’ apology and penance?”

          I think you don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘fulsome’. Still too busy painting and corners and all that I guess. Look it up Pops’.

          • Populuxe1 33.2.2.2.1

            Given the extent the Royal Family apologise for anything, it was fulsome.

      • Watching 33.2.3

        whilst not a politican dressing up in a nazi uniform hasn’t seemed to harm Prince Harry too much

        The point is Harry is not a wannabee politician. If William or Charles had dressed up in a Nazi uniform I expect a number of countries would reject them as Head of State when Elizabeth dies.

        Try it for yourself. Wear a Nazi uniform to the next party u attend (or even a work do) and tell us what happen next. The message would be Shorts – Nazi uniform – what else – do I want to be associated with shorts.

    • bad12 33.3

      Watching, watch this space, how low or how high on the food chain are you looking for for this Nazi
      connection….

    • MrSmith 33.4

      I really don’t think you and a lot of people get it Watching.

      Kim is going after the protest/young/tech savvy Vote, and trying to smear him in this way, will only make him more popular in the end with these groups, all this smear shows in the Nats are getting more desperate by the day.

  34. Tracey 34

    We are nearing April. Isn’t April the John Banks show trial? Ergo, need major discrediting of DotCom for this AND his later promised revelations about Mr Key.

    he hasn’t “handed” them anything. It’s apparently in storage in Europe… someone has been for sale… and wjo else can afford what someone was selling, but the Right?

    • karol 34.1

      Yep. There’s definitely a concerted effort to weaken Dotcom ahead of the Banks’ court case.

      There are powerful interests at play here. Has Dotcom got anything on Key? The concerted attacks on Dotcom would suggest he has, or at least, that Team Key is afraid he has something.

    • Penny Bright 34.2

      Nope – Banks trial for electoral fraud is set down for 19 May 2014 for 10 days in the Auckland High Court.

      Cheers

      Penny Bright

  35. RedLogix 35

    Heh – this thread sure has flushed all the authoritarians out of their closets.

    And as mickey predicted – a massively successful diversion. In the meantime the Treasury proposes selling off all public assets.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 35.1

      +1

      Maklouf needs to do some time in front of a select committee justifying his advice with examples from the real world.

      • captain hook 35.1.1

        Yes the teasury is still infected with new right fantasies about eviscerating the government and trying to make the country run with the only goods available being supplied by the corporations.
        Maklouf and co are insane but only psychopaths get ahead in this world.

    • karol 35.2

      But it also seems to me, whatever the Natz smear campaign was hoping to achieve, they have succeeded in ensuring maximum publicity for the Internet Party Launch today.

      Also interesting that the Stuff poll (easily open to manipulation, though I guess), has the Internet Party getting 13% of the online vote – they only need 5% and are aiming for the young and tech-savvy.

      • weka 35.2.1

        It will be interesting to follow just to see how they manage setting themselves up as a political party in the digitical age.

        I do think they have the capacity to either fuck the election for the left, or make it. Wild cards.

        • karol 35.2.1.1

          Agreed. It occurs to me that the Mein kampf smear may work in the favour of the Internet Party.

          The smear may result in some distance between the IntP and other left parties. However, judging by those here angered by the smear, the same could be true of the IntP’s target demographic – tech savvy young people. Many of these could be galvanised to support Dotcom & his party, enraged by the attempts to gag him, and giving KDC a certain kind of appealing outlaw persona.

          • lprent 35.2.1.1.1

            I was wondering the same thing. There is a pretty large group out there who are disinterested in politics, but who know what social media/news campaigns look like and will go and help underdogs out of a whim.

            On the eve of the launch of the party when the membership opens, there is this massive social media publicity burst that looks like an attack. It is based on something that was over 40 years before my siblings now adult kids were born? You couldn’t buy a better rebellion signature.,

            Attractive as a “up them” response.

            • Tracey 35.2.1.1.1.1

              yeah, a kind of ” fuck yea” by the younger voters.

              both my nephews will be first time voters and they say they will vote for him, knowing nothing of his policies.

  36. Sanctuary 36

    You all realise this attack on Dotcom is straight from the NSA playbook?

    Dotcom has humiliated the NZ establishment and that makes for some powerful enemies, especially when those enemies have access to plenty of cash and the full panoply of traditional and new types of surveillance and a compliant media.

    Like establishments everywhere (Julian Assange, anyone?), the first step in the retaliation is character assassination to isolate and discredit the target. And nowadays Edward Snowden’s revelations show you don’t to think that is just some wild conspiracy theory:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html
    http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/snowdenslamsopponentsspyinhwhilesarkozytargettedbysurveillance.html
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/how-surveillance-state-insiders-try-to-discredit-nsa-critics/281941/

    • RedLogix 36.1

      Precisely.

      And absolutely no-one is exempt. Anyone, everyone is a target if and when they decide you have become a nuisance.

      • weka 36.1.1

        Using fear to control people. Not a new tactic, but NZ thinks its immune because we are such nice people.

      • Tracey 36.1.2

        It’s odd when you think that the stuff that has been revealled around thw western world from Snowden doesn’t shine a great western democratic line down on us all… but a more totalitarian, ends justifies the menas, kind of a light. DotCom may be fighting such behaviour because it serves him personally, BUT if he can succeed (and he has raised the profile of that GCSB protest) and the public can begin to see that “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” is a propaganda line used through history… from the spanish inquisition to nazi germany to…. John Key, then that is a victory.

        I will leave it to our courts to decide if he should be extradicted. So far, the judiciary is standing up to any political pressure (if any is being applied).

  37. tsmithfield 37

    For those trying to minimise the Nazi implications, it should be remembered that it seems there is more to come out on Dotcom’s commitment to Nazi beliefs.

    Anyway, I guess Dotcom can be certain of Kyle Chapman’s vote. :smile:

  38. Puckish Rogue 38

    Can just imagine the out cry if Judith Collins had a signed copy of Mein Kampf

    One thing you lefties need to learn is the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” might be read as “the enemy of my enemy might also be my enemy as well”

    • RedLogix 38.1

      I once visited the site of one of Stalin’s gulags (Magadan).. It was one of the most vivid and chilling experiences of my life.

      Does this make me a mass murderer? (Or can you name the logical fallacy many people are making here?)

    • framu 38.2

      do you seriously think that everyones running round trying to be KDCs best mate?

      or is it more a case of “dont trust him at all – but i quite enjoy him putting egg on nationals face”?

      just because people like what KDC has achieved of re: the gcsb, john banks etc, doesnt mean they think hes some sort of fellow traveler

      your actually peddling the framing that first needs to be laid down in order for the smear campaign to work with that position.
      Why?

    • Tracey 38.3

      what? i support opposition to the gcsb legislation and the creeping dedemocratisation of nz. that dotcom wants to fight that fight doesnt mean i agree with all he says or even like him.

      i dont differentiate between acts of appalling human destruction as some here do. hitler orchestrated some awful deaths, so have so many before and since, and a few are doing it today.

      if dotcom wants to see the deaths of any section of humanity, believes in eugenics etc then lets see the evidence, owning signed books by hitler stalin truman and churchill may be sufficient evidence of that for some but not me.

      i think revealling the identity of a victim of sexual abuse against their wishes is also despicable yet many champion mr slater notwithstanding.

  39. lefty 39

    Dotcom is expert in media manipulation and has deliberately created his own myth.

    His own larger than life creation was bound to come back and bite him in the arse sometime because if you make shit up then it is very hard to tell where the truth ends and the bullshit begins.

    He is unhappy because he thought he had bought a right wing politician but the politician turned out to be less than reliable at delivering what he thought he had paid for.

    He is unhappy because the authorities thought it might take a team to make an arrest of a man holed up in a mansion with a team of bodyguards.

    He is unhappy because when he was on remand he had a torch shined on his face like every other remand prisoner (it is to make sure the prisoner is safe).

    He is unhappy because his staff want to be paid for the work they have done for him. So he says he will smite them down like mosquitos.

    He is unhappy because this country doesn’t provide enough activities and entertainment for the super rich.

    He has convinced a lot of people that just because the Hollywood and recording company elites are greedy bastards, issues of copyright are simple and it is ok to take the fruits of creative peoples labour without payment, even if they are struggling to support themselves. But he is unhappy when the fruits of his labour are seized when he is suspected of a crime, in the same way the law would be applied to anyone else in the same situation.

    He is unhappy when he is raided but he is silent about the injustice and violence by the institutions of the rich persons state that are carried out against the poor every day.

    He is a master manipulator caught up in his own trap. He has outsmarted himself and anybody who blames the media for confused reporting about him has been well and truly suckered by one of the greatest con man to ever come to this country.

    • Karen 39.1

      +100

    • Tracey 39.2

      So much of what you wrote is also true of our PM and his cabinet. We are genuinely badly served in this country if Key and his crew and DotCom are what passes for standards of behaviour … It seems that those who have millions genuinely believe they are better than others, know more than others, and sit above the law unlike others.

      DotCom struck a nerve with Key (calling him a liar over the raids and knowledge of DotCom etc) and now the rich boys are fighting each other with their money.

      One uses a blogger/s (amongst other things) and the other has bought himself publicity.

  40. TomR 40

    KDC will stuff Hone and anyone else who deals with him. The German is poisonous.

  41. Murray Olsen 41

    I’d put money on at least one member of the WhaleSpew Army having dressed up in a Nazi uniform at some stage. Not so minor British royals are renowned for it, yet Key still invites them and fawns all over them

    What a crock of shit from the right. As usual.

  42. fender 42

    Fuck all this .com bullshit, who needs it/him..

    Meanwhile Genesis gets stolen…

  43. BEATINGTHEBOKS 43

    Dotcom will be loving it. He is a total media whore and a fake. An unnecessary distraction this election year. I cannot see how people have not seen through him yet. He will do nothing good for this country.

    • Tracey 43.1

      He has a twin

      John Key will be loving it. He is a total media whore and a fake. Using unnecessary distractions this election year (like flags). I cannot see how people have not seen through him yet. He will do nothing good for this country.

      • BEATINGTHEBOKS 43.1.1

        There are significant differences. If you don’t know them you are blind. Key is a citizen, his politics are are for the benefit of a large percent of NZers ( intent). Dotcom has no intent to help nz, he is only here to avoid extradition. He made his fortune raping the produce of creative people. He has exploited the creative accomplishments of anyone who has created anything of value, know what mega means? Even our latest manbooker prize winner was ripped off on his website. He is a toxin, he cannot be trusted. Lie down with him if you think its best, but you will get up with fleas. Read mein kamp with him while you’re there, see how you go. No friend of the left, grow up you are sickening.

        • McFlock 43.1.1.1

          Not interested in helping nz, adefortue at expense of others, cannot be trusted, no friend of the left…

          So pretty much another john key then.

  44. Wensleydale 44

    This whole thing is such a ridiculous non-event.

    I own a copy of the Satanic Bible. It doesn’t make me a Satanist. If you can’t differentiate between someone owning an item for its historical, novelty, academic or potential investment value, and someone owning an item because they subscribe to the ideology behind it, then you’re a drooling half-wit and you probably deserve to be openly mocked.

  45. A.Ziffel 45

    KDC should avail himself of the hospitality of the new Ukraine.
    No extradition treaty with the US and a chance to form political links with Svoboda, who would no doubt appreciate his choice of memorabilia.

  46. Delia 46

    He has collected those things because they are worth money. Anyway Kim can make money he is in. It is all about money. It is just as bad having Stalin’s stuff, both were mass killers. However, I would think for Kim, they are investments.

    • Tracey 46.1

      yup, and Truman and Churchill (also masss killers, just on the winning side is all). Could be investments or could be a fascination with a period of history his nation had to pretend to forget and never speak of… kind of makes it more tantalising to a young inquisitive mind I would think, and one that enjoys war.

      • pete davies 46.1.1

        so the only difference between churchill and hitler is victory!
        really, , i dont know where to start with you tracey but it makes me rather sad to see such awful ignorance

        • Tracey 46.1.1.1

          You and populuxe are the ones trying to have scales of slaughter of innocents. churchill and truman ok. hitler not. i say no slaughter of innocents is ok just cos the order for the slaughter comes from “our side”.

          dresden was an appalling and unnecessary slaughter of civillians, so was hiroshima and nagasaki, … i am sorry you cant see that is the point i have been making rather than seeing g what you wantin my words.

          i have never said in this thread that hitler was not responsible for heinous slaughter. i have said he is one of many and trying to paint him as a one off is probably why slaughter of innocent humans didnt stop with him..

          if you think a guy having a signed copy of hitlers prison ranting is the burning issue of the day, a all power to you buti wont bow down to a riduculous ses sensitivity that results in scales of slaughter. hitler being heinous churchill and truman being rationalised. most importantly churchill and truman teach us that our definitions of good may be skewed or that until we understand that good people do heinous things, and sometimes with a smile on their face it is you who hasnt lea learned from history, not me.

  47. DS 47

    This entire thing is so utterly nonsensical. Owning a book signed by whomever doesn’t make you a better or worse person than someone who doesn’t own that book. Just because you own a copy of something doesn’t mean you endorse it.

    Where does this leave stamp collectors, by the way? There are plenty of stamps from dodgy regimes floating around.

  48. Tim2 48

    While owning the book in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, the reason he gave for buying it was,

    “I’m a Call of Duty player right, so if you know the game Call of Duty it’s all about World War II,” says Dotcom. “I’m a big fan of that and I’ve bought material from Stalin, from Churchill and Hitler.”

    The photo in the above link was taken before C.O.D was released, so there was obviously interest in nazi memorabilia for other reasons, why lie??

  49. greywarbler 49

    What a lot of hot air. Here’s a bit of string I am holding. One end I have labelled Nazi and one end free superior spiritual kindly etc. Now imagine them and then argue about whether I should cut the Nazi bit of string off because it is defiled forever, and keep only the good end. Stupid eh. And most of this thread has been the same.

  50. hellonearthis 50

    I hope no MP’s have coin collections, how would they explain owning a coin from the Roman Caligula era

  51. McGrath 51

    Kim Dotcom now has an element of taint associated with him. And those who think that “its just a book” need to visit Auschwitz to see what the power of ideas from a madman can achieve. It really is sobering…

    • felix 51.1

      Yeah, concentration camps and mass murder are, you know, bad.

      But the book is still just a book regardless.

      • hellonearthis 51.1.1

        Maybe the haters of the book should round all the copies up and burn them, like the nazies did. :/

    • McFlock 51.2

      “an element of taint”?

      Do you mean a factor of someone else’s innuendo, or simply that he now smells a bit like arse?

    • RedLogix 51.3

      need to visit Auschwitz to see what the power of ideas from a madman can achieve.

      What – are you telling us you’re a nazi-fanboi tourist?

      • felix 51.3.1

        Well if owning a copy of Mein Kampf makes you a Nazi sympathiser then visiting the scenes of the atrocities must really make you a monster.

        • Populuxe1 51.3.1.1

          I marvel at your pig-headed refusal to grasp this simple point.
          It’s not the book’s content that is disturbing, it is the physical object – specifically ordered printed and bound by H as personal presentation copies to his friends and autographed.
          The only reason they are collectable and worth a lot of money is because their sole importance is as H relics. No one is saying that makes KDC a Nazi sympathier. It does, however, make him a tasteless bastard who has no qualms about profiting from this disgusting remnant of a vile, evil man. The fact that KDC thinks it’s funny to wear an SS helmet to a gumball rally further emphasises the man’s complete detachment from basic human decency.
          Fuck man, you are dense

          • miravox 51.3.1.1.1

            So Kim Dotcom is a tasteless bastard, and has no qualms profiting from… well, maybe anything that takes his fancy for more than a second. I know a few people the same. Sadly, they don’t make the 6pm news for that.

            Btw, I find the content disturbing. If he was reading the thing and believed it, I’d find that more disturbing than ownership, however as you state, there is no evidence in this purchase that is the case. Hence the call of distraction. Amazing that we have some people throwing stuff around that comes right out of propaganda101, but the media does nothing about that except join on in.

          • felix 51.3.1.1.2

            “The only reason they are collectable and worth a lot of money is because their sole importance is as H relics.”

            Says you.

            Really puts all your frothing rage into perspective when the flimsy nature of your premises are revealed.

          • Tracey 51.3.1.1.3

            And your explanation for his autographed books by Stalin and Churchill and others??? The same?

            http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_gaffes/harry_nazi.jpg

  52. geoff 52

    So this is what Dancing Cossacks looks like in 2014.

    John Key better hope his anti-dotCom strategy will pay off because dotCom has announced he will never work with John Key/National

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/dotcom-rules-working-john-key-5877109

    • weka 52.1

      Does he say ‘National’ in the video? Because on the text report he just says Key.

      • geoff 52.1.1

        Good noticing! No he doesn’t actually say National in the video, my assumption poor comprehension.

        Hmm, does this mean he may be cultivating relationships with other National party politicians?

        • weka 52.1.1.1

          I had a look through the online news text reports, and there are variations eg he says hw won’t work with National this term etc. Would be good to see some direct quotes, but it seems safe to assume at this stage that the left won’t be able to rely on him long term even if any left party thinks it wise in the short term.

          • geoff 52.1.1.1.1

            He’s a strange one alright. His most natural fit is probably with ACT but no one on the right would go near him now after his set-tos with banks and key.

          • karol 52.1.1.1.2

            weka, in the video on NZ Herald’s website, in the one-on-one interview (after about 3-4 minutes into the vid), KDC says, “I’m not going to work with national.”

  53. mike 53

    Anyone who thinks adolf was great in any way is morally bankrupt, a mental midget, and a psychopath. So obviously this profiles KDC perfectly. Anyone who owns a signed copy of that worthless garbage that is the book he owns, and he paid that much for it, is also mentally retarded. I have no idea why anyone would defend KDC’s moral bankruptcy.

    • felix 53.1

      Define “great”. There are many meanings and some easily apply to Hitler, depending on context.
      I don’t think anyone here is defending anything other that someone’s right to own a book.

  54. Richard@Down South 54

    I haven’t seen it mentioned, but I wonder if aside from being a WW2 buff, having such an item, which he would be banned from owning in Germany, is also a point of personal freedom for Kim Dot Com… he seems to be very much about “I’m a free human being, you can’t tell me what to do”

    Just my 10c

  55. Sacha 55

    Parata? Jobs? Housing?

    Judging by the number of comments here it’s a jolly good distraction.
    Well done Jason Ede, Slater, Farrar, Hooten et al.
    And everyone else for playing along. Just keep it up for the next 6 months, eh.

  56. Hami Shearlie 56

    What a beat up dreamed up by Key and his minion, Whaleoil! – If the head of the Jewish Council is allowed to have a copy of the book, why not Dot Com? And what about all the Chinese people in NZ who have copies of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book? Didn’t millions die under his rule too? This is just another “let’s change the flag” red herring. People who have a modicum of intelligence can see it for exactly what it is. Nice try Shonkey Jonkey, better luck next time.

  57. felix 57

    Seems appropriate: “I’m a nazi baby, a nazi yes I am”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36vKj3ugHXk

  58. Glenn 58

    Darn! I guess this means if I start a political party (or annoy J.K too much) I’ll have to burn the flag collection I have at the bottom of my wardrobe. Confederate flag, Pirate flag, Rising Sun Japanese flag and all. Not to mention the “signed” photo of Ginger Lynn.

    No damn it I won’t burn the photo.

  59. Rachel 59

    I am of East European Jewish descent and have visited Auschwitz to pay my respects to the victims of the Holocaust, where I don’t mind admitting that I felt incredibly angry and wept openly for the innocent men, women and children who had been murdered there.

    Having said that, I see nothing sinister in Kim Dotcom merely OWNING a historically significant signed copy of Mein Kamph, particularly given that he’s a WWII history buff. I don’t think it’s fair to judge him without any real evidence, and I am far more disturbed by this shameless smear campaign by Cameron Slater and TV3 reporter Brook Sabin, son of National MP Mike Sabin. Hmmm, coincidence much? It might sound creepy or suspect to some, but that doesn’t make it so. I’m far more concerned about this increasingly authoritarian and sinister government in power than I am about Dotcom, they are starting to resemble the REAL NAZIS more and more every day with their attacks on the poor (working poor and unemployed poor) and sickness beneficiaries!

    I remember being similarly fascinated with Hitler when I was about 11 (I did a study on him at intermediate school, complete with pencil drawing!) because I wanted to understand what can drive a human being to carry out mass murder on such a scale, and under what kind of psychological conditions a leader could persuade an entire nation to go along with his evil plans. So if you’d shown me a copy of Mein Kamph signed by Hitler, the 11-year-old me would have been quite awestruck (is that the right word?), because it would have provided some kind of physical, tangible evidence or connection to a past that I was desperately trying to understand.

    Humans carry a whole blend of muddled, inconsistent beliefs and practices with us that would look strange from the objective perspective of an alien anthropologist. Sometimes, smoke really is without fire.

    It’s impossible to attach any kind of universal meaning to possession of a mere OBJECT like a book, because we all view objects in the world very differently to each other, based on our cultural norms and personal values. Some see objects as being sacred, some think objects are an extension of our own identity, some see objects as ostentatious markers of wealth and privilege, some see objects merely as a collection of atoms and electrons signifying nothing. Some people think that if a woman has her period and then touches an object, she will automatically contaminate it, even if she’s washed her hands in bleach before and after.

    Think about how many people stole a few rocks from the Berlin Wall when it was torn down. They just wanted to hold a piece of history in their hands. If there was any actual evidence of Dotcom being a white supremacist, or if had a swastika tattoo, or he kept his copy of Mein Kamph under his pillow and kissed it every night before bed, then I’m sure they would have mentioned that in the story. Since he’s under constant surveillance, and NZ is a very small village, it would already have come to light, as so many people have an axe to grind against him.

    People are free to like him or dislike him – a strong argument can be made either way depending on what you think is more important – intellectual copyright of videos vs. authoritarian government spying on its own citizens – but let’s judge him for that, not this sensationalist rubbish.

    I happen to feel that Kim Dotcom has held a mirror up to the grotesque corruption within this government, so I think his presence here has made a valuable contribution to New Zealand. I can’t think of any other reason why the National Party are desperate to be rid of him, because normally they love rich immigrants who break the law. I just hope he has a thick skin, he’s going to need it.

    • mickysavage 59.1

      Thanks Rachel. Well said.

    • Clemgeopin 59.2

      Nice post, Rachel. I feel likewise.

      This whole created piece of sensational gutter type of ‘main 6 pm’ ‘news’ is the right wing directed dirty smear tactic to discredit the man and his party through nasty propaganda, scurrilous spin and harmful BS. Even a fool can fathom that.

      I suspect that many people who are not natural political supporters of KimDotCom, may now be tempted, out of sympathy, to reconsider because of the unfair biased tactic and reporting of him and his party by the right wing manipulators, the media and nasty blogs.

      Today he launched his Internet Party. That IS an important news item, but it barely got any intelligent, informed, fair or balanced exposure on the TV news. That is how I felt anyway. Did you or any one else here think so too?

    • Sanctuary 59.3

      Brilliant.

      • Sanctuary 59.3.1

        Just to add, I think Rachels eloquent post is the best thing I’ve read anywhere on this subject, and it should be framed and put up in public places.

    • Tracey 59.4

      +1

  60. Descendant Of Sssmith 60

    I put this alongside someone in New Zealand using the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” Goebells/Orwell argument put forward by our right-wing government when talking about the GSCB bill (I notice how often this flies off Mr Banks tongue as well) and despair.

    The use of this obnoxious propaganda to strip away New Zealanders’ rights and privacy should forever be seen for the venal evil that it is.

    Owning a book has no real life consequence on any of us.

    The justification AND the passing of that legislation have. I know people who have stopped using the internet since and others who have become very cautious. They now fear to some extent the government that we have in place. They fear to complain about government departments for fear their information will be viewed or released.

    I detest those bastards who have made citizens of this country fearful – deliberately, purposefully and consciously they have done this.

    • Populuxe1 60.1

      Which is terribly ironic give that Kim Dotcom made most of his money providing ways for people to steal IP

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 60.1.1

        Not ironic at all given I expressed no opinion on my thoughts on Dotcom and copyright.

        And anyway the real irony would be that he paid for book in question.

  61. Huginn 61

    No problem at all with Alan Gibbs’ gleeful account of seeking out the Afghani warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum for a sociable chat about nothing in particular over dinner when Gibbs heard that Dostum had been accused of this:

    A NY Times reported that according to anonymous witnesses they interviewed, “over a three-day period, Taliban prisoners were stuffed into closed metal shipping containers and given no food or water; many suffocated while being trucked to the prison. Other prisoners were killed when guards shot into the containers. The bodies were said to have been buried in a mass grave in Dasht-i-Leili, a stretch of desert just outside Sheberghan.

    • Tracey 62.1

      “We were the guests at a dinner where he also had the richest man in that part of Asia, who was courting him and had bought with him a rock band and a magician and a raconteur and about a hundred varieties of vodka, and the Ambassador from Russia, the Ambassador from Turkmenistan and the Ambassador from Uzbekistan … and us.

      It was like an ancient medieval court and it ran exactly the same way.”

      Sounds Like the Court on Planet Key

  62. [lprent:

    But when I'm moderating I always notice flat assertions of fact. It is the second most common reason for me warning/banning people.

    Sure I don't catch everything, but examples please if you want to assert that. I'll explain why I would or wouldn't notice something when I spot your comments on moderation sweeps.

    lprent 1.1.1.2
    "They will recognise that in a heartbeat because they grew up with this kind of thing deeply embedded in their lives. They don’t watch network TV and they know deep in their bones the social media are always trying to sell them lines."

    [lprent: What are you on about? It is obviously opinion. How could anyone be certain what everyone in that group thinks. There are academic studies that point that way. ]

    Anne 1.1
    “Kim Dotcom is under constant surveillance and his communications are subjected to close scrutiny. It isn’t necessarily a state run agency that is responsible (although I’m sure the GCSB is in there somewhere) because The NATZES have access to plenty of dosh and can purchase individuals who have surveillance expertise and the wherewithal to carry it out. The results go into JK’s top drawer and is removed and released at a time it can do the most damage.”

    [lprent: What are you objecting to? What "fact" ? ]

    Tom Gould 1.4
    “it is disturbing that the Tories and their cronies and paid lackeys in the media have carefully constructed this attack capability able to destroy anyone’s character and career, at will. ”

    [lprent: Opinion. What fact? ]

    ghostwalksnz 16
    “John Key has no books at all in HIS library.”

    [lprent: Hyperbole. What fact? There is no way that he could know. ]

    travellerev 19.1.1
    “John Key calls himself a secular Jew”
    PapaMike 19.1.1.1
    “Evidence pleas of where Key calls himself a Secular Jew ?”

    travellerev sisn’t held to account but a moderator tries to answer instead:
    “[lprent: I believe it it a description rather than a quote? Try the links here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#Religious_views
    Either way it is common knowledge and you can find a number of examples of his fluid religious views in posts from 2088-9 ]”

    Is that the standard of proof that’s acceptable? Make a statement “it is common knowledge”, and point at some links and tell the challenger to find things for themselves, and make a typo (that others may be jumped on for)? Is this approach a moderator’s prerogative or is it an acceptable form of response?

    [lprent: Yes. TE stated an opinion by paraphrasing a number of things that Key has said on this topic over the years. PapaMike tried to make a question about a quote. I went to wikipedia and answered while moderating because it was silly question but deserved some info in response. ]

    travellerev 19.1.1
    ” our own war mongering Jewish puppet prime minister ”

    As the previous pojnt shows travellerev was supported by a moderator, but while this assertion was pointed out it was ignored. No problems with site liability on this?

    [lprent: You are selectively quoting and not providing a link to the comment - which irritates me. It is clearly her opinion and she provided ample evidence of that in the comment. ]

    Sanctuary 20.2.1
    “John Key is a lepidopterist! he kills beautiful creatures for fun! he gloats that he has a rare and endangered butterfly on his study wall! How sick is that guy?”

    bad12 from 31 – numerous statements and claims.
    etc

    [lprent: Hyperbole. If you think that this expresses any fact, then it is clear that you have no idea what one is. ]

    I understand that moderators have limited time and have to choose what they spend their time on. This means perceptions of inconsistency may occur.

    [lprent: Did you notice that bit that said you have to explain why you think it was a fact? Apart from the reply from TEs comment you didn't attempt to. Too lazy?

    As far as I can see none of these made a flat assertion of a fact. They were all opinions or hyperbole.

    Basically you appear to be inadequate to doing even the simple task of identifying what is a "flat assertions of fact". It doesn't speak well to your future role. ]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 63.1

      :roll:

    • thought you’d start yr day with a big lips-purse..

      ..eh..?

      ..is the above what passes for ‘fact-checking’ in yr ‘polii-check’-world..?

      ..and gee..!..you must be really busy @ slaters’/farrars’..eh..?

      ..or are you still yr usual ‘different person’ there..?

      ..more ‘accommodating’..there..?

      ..different hats for different courses..eh..?

      ..methinks..

    • Here is a little soundtrack where John Key with almost Hitlerian hysteria screams we ought to be in Iraq. Why? To help Iraqis. Neh! Because the US won’t extend trade agreements with us if we don’t.

      Like we need trade agreements with the biggest mass murdering war criminal governed country in human history.

      He also signed a NEW agreementa with NATO in June 2012 and we send a frigate (te Mana) to Somalia to aid NATO in an “anti piracy” operation together with an Ukrainian ship. He send NZ troops under the NATO Treaty to train for an invasion into Russia in November 2013 and NZ troops also trained in Cornwall with NATO’s quick response team. The Southern Katipo training operation was compiled of NATO countries and soon to be NATO members and was a REGIME CHANGE scenario. Military intervention in a sovereign country with regime change in mind is a WAR CRIME.

      I support my claim that John Key calls himself a secular Jew with a link to an article called will the real John Key step forward in which he says that technically he is a Jew because his mother is but he is easy with religion and goes to church because it is the right thing to do.

      John Key is a warmongering bankster scumbag hypocrite who (also known as psychopath according to a research project written about in der Spiegel) will continue to sell this country off to the highest bidder until he disappears into the blue yonder of the revolving door universe to his next comfy money bagging job.

      I appreciate the fact that Iprent and the other moderators treat me with respect in most cases but I also worked hard for that respect by linking and showing that my remarks where based on research and due diligence.

      And while my conclusions may not be theirs, the research and links (Such as straight to the NATO website in this case) apparently gives them the confidence to allow my comments to stand.

      • Te Reo Putake 63.3.1

        “I support my claim that John Key calls himself a secular Jew with a link to an article called will the real John Key step forward in which he says that technically he is a Jew because his mother is but he is easy with religion and goes to church because it is the right thing to do.”

        So you you support your claim that he calls himself a secular jew by linking to an article in which he does not call himself a secular jew. Foot, meet bullet.

        • travellerev 63.3.1.1

          <,blockquote>He was less than upfront when quizzed about whether he believed in God on Agenda in April.

          “That’s an interesting question.

          “Do I believe in God? I don’t believe in life after death.”

          Asked again he said: “Well I don’t believe in life after death; I don’t know.”

          Asked for a third time: “Well if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion.

          “I look at religion as doing the right thing; I don’t define that as someone that goes to church necessarily on a Sunday.

          “I mean I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn’t describe it as something that I … I’m not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way.”

          Not for you obviously because it seems to me you get paid to troll me or else yu have an unhealthy fixation on me but for the others who might want to make up their own mind about how “religious” John Key is while technically being a Jew.

    • Te Reo Putake 63.4

      Nice post, pete. Illustrates perfectly why people think you’re a humourless bore.

    • wtl 63.5

      You do realise that that half those statements were people being sarcastic and not meant to be taken literally?

      • Pete George 63.5.1

        So if someone claims it’s sarcasm you can say what you like here?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 63.5.1.1

          When Politifact is born dead, will you feel the merest twinge of responsibility, you tiresome wanker?

        • lprent 63.5.1.2

          It depends if the moderators detect if it is sarcasm or read it at face value. There have been a few people banned for comments that they subsequently claimed was sarcasm, but which I looked at and saw that it was actionable and a potential liability danger for the site.

          Now I’m aware that you aren’t particularly aware of the facts about defamation based on your comments back in 2012 where you appeared to have a mythic view of the legalities. However I’m acutely aware of them, which is why we don’t allow flat assertions of fact that are false. It is also why we don’t get sued and seldom get contacted by lawyers.

          It is a risk that you take on moderated blogs about sarcasm and hyperbole. But ultimately the responsibility and risk for what you say is carried by the site. They tend to pass that to the people commenting. If the moderators feel it is an honest mistake, then they will take a benign corrective action. If it appears to be malevolent to the site then the corrective action will be malevolent.

          • Pete George 63.5.1.2.1

            “we don’t allow flat assertions of fact that are false”

            Do you think this is an example of a flat assertion of a fact that is false or an honest mistake with benign corrective action taken by the moderator?

            “…National used their sockpuppets at TV3 and Whaleoil to make it a story …”

            “My understanding is that Dotcom gave the story to TV3 because he wanted to control how it broke.”

            http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/two-points/#comment-103968

            I don’t know if either of you are correct. Patrick Gower claimed that Sabin had been working on the story since early this year.

            [lprent: You obviously haven't cottoned on the why we don't allow them. It has to do with liability. As I said yesterday, you have to look from the viewpoint of this site - not your own right wing political views. Buggerit.. comment. ]

            • karol 63.5.1.2.1.1

              This is pretty similar to what John Drinnan wrote today:

              The influence of Whale Oil was apparent on Wednesday night, when TV3 parliamentary reporter Brook Sabin revealed that Kim Dotcom owns a rare, signed copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf – a founding document for the Nazi ideology. Sabin, a promising young journalist, asked Dotcom if owning the book meant he agreed with Hitler.

              Dotcom said he was no Nazi, and was simply a collector of such texts.

              A few minutes later the pro-National blogger Cameron Slater – an assiduous Dotcom critic – “coincidentally” posted about the Hitler book on his Whale Oil website. It appears Slater sparked the item, with his inquiries prompting Dotcom to feed the story to TV3, hoping to get in first.

              TV3 news and current affairs director Mark Jennings says Sabin had been working on the story for weeks.

              It is entirely conceivable that both WO and TV3 were fed the story by the same people a few weeks back.

              • lprent

                It is entirely conceivable that both WO and TV3 were fed the story by the same people a few weeks back.

                I’d call it bloody likely. I’d also say that they were both told to hold off publishing until the eve of the Internet Party launch. It isn’t likely that either on their own would have held off or that they would have involved the other unless their source forced them. Journalists aren’t notable for being cooperative about sharing stories except in very rare cases requiring cooperation. About the only instance I can think of offhand was the Snowden story at the Guardian. They needed cooperation from NYT.

                As I said earlier – National’s sockpuppets. It is a supposition approaching certainty which is why it can and will be expressed as such. If someone wanted to take action on that, I wouldn’t mind. I suspect that the legal debate about discovery motions would be quite revealing and entertaining.

                It is exactly the same logical process that John Drinnan would have gone through.

                • It’s quite likely, but it’s unlikely there will ever be any proof. Just like who was behind the Collins/Oravida story and why it was timed how it was. There was some fairly obvious collusion between politicians and media on that. And the Cunliffe trust stories could be in the same category. Who knows who leaked them.

                  It’s a part of same old dirty politics. I think it’s a shame but some people with a lot at stake use any means they think they can get away with.

                  • Descendant Of Sssmith

                    Sadly including to pretend to be the voice of reason and sensibility and the arbiter of integrity when all the time holding a bitchy right-wing bias a mile wide.

                    I once had a boss like that – he knew all the right noises to make and thought he was more reasoned and articulate than he was but his actions and decisions would always betray him when his insincerity didn’t.

                    Funnily enough he had strong links with the National Party.

                    It”s like washed potatoes in the supermarket. They might look clean but they are still the same spuds as the ones openly covered in dirt at the end of the day. I have much more respect for the dirty spuds. They’re not pretending to be anything other that what they are.

    • Lanthanide 63.6

      Pete, I’ve got a bit of a reputation here for pulling other people up when they make assertions that aren’t backed up by the evidence, particularly when it comes to scientific matters.

      In all of the examples (I won’t say ‘quotes’) you’ve got here in this post, I wouldn’t bother to raise any of them because they are clearly hyperbole/opinion.

      [lprent: You have indeed. I use you as one of the pointers ]


      :twisted:

  63. Mirrie 64

    What I would like to know is, where is Whaleoil/TV3 getting this information, photos etc from. It appears to me that someone who has Dotcom’s inventory, including his photo collection is supplying the details, in short, the FBI. Clearly someone in high places with influence is feeding this attack, and it stinks.

    Dotcom is clearly not a Nazi nor has Nazi sympathies. He has five children of mixed ethnicity, and that alone demonstrates that he does not adhere to Nazi values. Whilst I have no intention of voting for the man, I object strongly to information gained through a criminal investigation being supplied to National supporters/media for political scoring. We should all be very concerned.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 64.1

      I think at least some of it is coming from Wayne Tempero.

      • the pigman 64.1.1

        Well, the assumption that the signed-MK claim came from Wayne Tempero looks slightly shaky now that it appears that KDC values this guiding text of his so highly that he doesn’t keep it New Zealand. If Trotter is correct and the information came from the U.S. investigators, then, well, we should all be very afraid.

        (Presumably the book itself sits atop a high and elaborate altar in the depths of the Black Forest lit with candles, adorned with shoes and toothbrushes and is placed (reverently) upon a cushion of human hair. The altar is crowned with a portrait of the fuhrer himself, and is attended by KDC’s hooded disciples.)

        Note to PG – the above is not being offered as fact.

        • Mirrie 64.1.1.1

          But if he valued the text so highly, and if it was his ‘guide’ then surely he would have it with him, rather than stored away overseas, where its economical value is better protected? People tend to keep the things of most spiritual significance with them, so they can enjoy them and draw strength from their presence.

          As for the candles in the black forest, do you know how breezy that place is? A candle would never stay lit!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 64.1.1.2

          @The Pigman, I just figure that Dotcom told Tempero, or someone within his hearing.

    • Wayne Tempero has a gag order on him. It’s been clear that other ex-security staff have been talking to media and Slater.

      And both Whale Oil and Rachel Glucima have been open about one of their main sources. NZ Herald:

      A former friend and employee of Kim Dotcom spoke exclusively to The Diary from Los Angeles yesterday about the internet tycoon as he launched his foray into New Zealand politics.

      Alex Mardikian played fixer for Dotcom, bringing people together and making things happen. He was a close friend and trusted adviser, living in the Coatesville mansion and watching Dotcom first-hand. He says he was paid a monthly retainer, but left in 2012.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11227811

      Whale Oil: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/03/real-secret-life-kim-dotcom-seig-heil-mein-kampf-nazi-flags-admiration-adolf-hitler/

      • Mirrie 64.2.1

        .

        I am sure there are some that have made comments, but how does that explain the photos and other such things?

        Anyone stupid enough to listen to ex-employees and quote them as a reliable source, deserves to be harpooned, not literally of course.

        • Pete George 64.2.1.1

          It’s not hard to find things. I just googled Dotcom SS helmet and found this:
          http://www.fastcompany.com/1809761/feds-close-megaupload-founder-kim-dotcom

          Megaupload has since been taken down, but there are a few other appearances by Dotcom in videos on the web, including the one below, in which he’s accused of street racing in the Gumball Rally, the real life Cannonball Run. The gold can be found 36 seconds in, just after the shot of Dotcom in a Nazi SS helmet when he declares in his German-Finnish accent, “When we are on the highway, we go PSSSSSST!”

          A video by Dotcom which shows him wearing an SS helmet.

          Once you have a pointer to something that could be of interest or use you just need to search nd you will often find.

          • Mirrie 64.2.1.1.1

            Haven’t members of the Royal Family also been photographed in Nazi costume and even performing certain Nazi behaviours?

            No matter how hard you try to protect John Key’s regime, it is blatantly obvious why this has been made an issue of, and the timing of it. It is also obvious that information has been exchanged that has allowed people like Whaleoil to access to it, and we all know who Whaleoil represents. This is nothing more than a smear campaign being used to create fear in the minds of the public. It is the use of propaganda, which given the portrayed context of the issue is hypocritical.

  64. One Anonymous Bloke 65

    Well that didn’t take long. Five hundred members in less than twenty-four hours.

  65. Weepu's Beard 66

    Regarding the “pre raid meetings with John Key”. We’ve been promised a lot on this but I just don’t think it exists.

    On “skilled bloggers”. Why does no-one bother to attack the relationship between the hate-speaking Whaleoil and the Prime-minister’s office?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 66.1

      If the evidence did exist, when would be the best time to use it, politically speaking?

      Does it just become another item on Blip’s list? Or does Paddy Gower produce it triumphantly after making Key deny it for a couple of minutes on live tv, on the Monday before the election?

      I’m skeptical that evidence exists, particularly since staff who might have corroborated it have jumped ship, but the fact that Dotcom hasn’t produced it yet doesn’t signify much.

      • Weepu's beard 66.1.1

        Agree on the timing but Dotcom will be in tatters by then having been flayed by the Wayne Eagle/Whaleoil tag team. Don’t forget, it’s now legal to spy on New Zealanders and I believe a lot of the info used against the opposition comes from govt agencies.

    • Mirrie 66.2

      Anyone that tries to, meets with a great deal of opposition from those that wish to ensure the relationship remains obscure. OIA requests do however produce interesting facts, for example, in the past I have been kept waiting the full length of allowed time for a reply to my OIA requests. However at least one of them revealed that the Whale’s requests are attended to overnight.

  66. lurgee 67

    If this was a distraction tactic, it would appear it was a successful one. Several hundred comments of hysterical jubbering about the moral status of a parasite noble freedom fighter.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 67.1

      Nah, there’s a reason for the public and activist interest in Mr.com, his new political party, his arrest and potential extradition, and the smear campaign against him.

      It encapsulates much of the recent discussion around surveillance and security. It shows how long – and how strong – Hollywood’s arm is. It has brought the National Party’s relationship with Cameron Slater into the light.

      And that’s before we get to the significance of the Internet Party, which I suspect will be more about means than ends.

      • greywarbler 67.1.1

        OAB
        Good point. Your reason shines through the fog.

      • Mirrie 67.1.2

        Hollywood has bought the National Party. That is very clear. And the National Party has invited Hollywood into our homes and private spaces. Not just through the use of television and the popular media, but now through the controlled and legal means of our spy agency. An agency that now has the right to interpret what we do and what say in any manner they wish to, but preferably in a way that Hollywood would most like them too.

Links to post

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts