- Date published:
6:10 pm, September 9th, 2014 - 72 comments
Categories: David Farrar, election 2014, spin - Tags: dirty politics, dpf, jason ede, kiwiblog, national party research unit, spin
Dirty Politics, chapter 9:
It’s like deja vu all over again.
David Farrar is as guilty as sin when it comes to Dirty Politics.
His whining and moaning over the supposed hacking of his computer following the launch of the book “Dirty Politics” was nothing but a cover-up job to try and claim victim status and distract from his involvement in the rotten game.
Anyone who has ever been the victim of a dirty smear campaign – more often than not involving unlawful conduct similar to Slater’s – will know that the perpetrator (or perpetrators) always use this tactic to cover for their own behaviour. The sad part is they invariably get away with it because the ‘powers that be’ (read establishment) let them get away with it. You have to ask yourself… why?
Why wouldnt he and slater continue with impugnity the liar in chief with assistance from parts of the media has got thecountry to look the other way…
They feel enough people havent read it to not notice they are continuing the strategy
Also Anne, by now Farrar and certainly Slater are totaly convinced that the lies they made up are now truth.
That is my experience of liars… They are convincing in part because they convince themselves the lies are true
Absolutely Tracey. It’s actually a kind of mental disorder. They somehow manage to believe their own lies and that means they come across to other people as genuine and plausible.
To people who won’t read the book ‘Dirty Politics’ I insert quick questions,
“Whaddaya think of Slater’s ‘knife the bitch’ comment about Helen Clark and Judith Collin’s reply? Oh You don’t know about that?
Whadda you think about Slater wanting to write a book about Politicians rooting? Oh didn’t you read that?
‘Whadda think about Slater calling Christchurch people useless pricks and scum?’ Oh didn’t you read that?
Whadda ya think about John Key and Slater’s cuddly photo? Oh haven’t you looked at that ?
Probably OK with wavering voters, doesn’t do much to committed Tories but makes me feel good.
A cloud of shame has descended over National MPs and supporters.
I watched 2 cabinet ministers at election debates this past week. Both slouched in their chairs. Beaten animals looking for a place to hide. Both denied they had read Dirty Politics, a lie to protect themselves from having to answer questions about it.
This is our election to win. We have our honor. We have the leaders. We have policies for the future.
Who the fuck cares about Cameron Slater.
Honestly, he’s not really that important.
Not any more.
He was once important enough to know classified information and get record turnaround on OIA requests. And he was in frequent contact with the PM, after all
So says bm, whose political opinions always come with a link to whaleoil. But then again,maybe he knows that Slater is a useful fool and agrees with Hager’s assertion that the real dirt comes from the Beehive.
John Key used to care enough to speak to him ‘regularly’, until dirty politics was released, then regularly became ‘maybe four times a year’.
You care the fuck about His Grossness BM. It screams.
The deliberate use of him by members of our parliament, our PM and our media is important.
john key and ms collins have found him VERY useful, if not important.
Couldn’t care less about him.
Neither. But his relationship with National party movers and shakers, that is more interesting.
You having a Tui’s moment as well Confused ?…….wahahahahaha !
what about the state using him as a proxie to run their dirt? – do you care about that?
@ infused: “Couldn’t care less about him.”
I’m guessing that you haven’t read Hager’s book.
It really doesn’t matter a good goddam what you think of Slater. The book shows the damage he and his mates have done: it’s corruption. Nobody can airily dismiss that, as you seem to want to do, without it being implicit that you see nothing wrong with what he’s been involved in.
Vote the Key government out, and put the other parties on notice that we won’t tolerate behaviour of that sort in our politicians.
I am waving signs at intersections during rush hour. The response is excellent in my part of Auckland. One exception. If on election day white males were banned from driving, we would win in a landslide. On the other hand, if National promised free Viagra, they would win.
#teamtaxcut of $500, what not enough? make it $1000, still not floating your boat? well lets make it $1500. I can do this all day cause I akshully havn’t costed it or put out any figures.
AmaKiwi, don’t give them ideas! 🙂
only a change of government and a royal commission will get to the truth and hold the so called elites responsible donkey is donkey deep and will block any attempt to get justice where justice has been corrupted the people are justified to act.
I’ve read much worse comments here Rodel. We all say shit like that about politicians that piss us off. Amakiwi, thats very
racist. What if I said hope no brown blokes allowed out on election day. Or is it ok to be racist on this blog. Maybe thats why the blogs you speak are the most read in the land because they have excellent information flow.
I’ve read much worse comments here Rodel.
oh really? Because the moderators tend to delete comments advocating physical violence to others, whether the people intend to carry out such things or not.
And I doubt very much that anyone here would advocate writing about politicians’ sex lives – at least not right wingers anyway.
And no lefties would talk about Christchurch people the way Slater did.
Your comment is just a variation on the “the left do it, too” type defense of Slater’s dirty dealings.
I struggle to see how saying “if on election day white males were banned from driving, we would win in a landslide” is racist. It’s simply a fact (kinda, depending on appeal across other groups and what constitutes a landslide and so on) that National are generally considered to gain a larger share of the white male vote than other parties do. This was outlined in The Hollow Men, by National politicians.
I think you’re just looking for a reason to pretend to be offended. Go away, silly child.
I am white and male, FWIW.
Of course its not racist when white males are on the recieving end just like its not theft when emails are stolen for a good cause….
I don’t think you understood lurgee’s point.
On “the receiving end” of what? An explanation of why National might win?
I understand his point because funnily enough I was out the other the day waving signs and I tell ya – If we could ban those brown women from driving on election day the nats would govern alone!
Possibly true and not racist to say so.
The question for Labour is, how does it broaden its appeal to white males? Too much focus is given to trying to squeeze yet more votes out of women and minorities.
The question for National is, ho does it broaden its appeal to brown and female voters?
@ lurgee: “The question for National is, ho does it broaden its appeal to brown and female voters?”
Well, corruption isn’t going to do it, I imagine. And I’m guessing that those white males aren’t attracted by it either – if they know about it, that is.
mike – has anyone said its not theft?
or have people said that is was theft, but as it was exposing state corruption against its own citizens then the public interest outweighed the criminal aspect?
that tiny bit of fact sort of makes your little whinge seem a tad silly and uninformed no?
@ mike: “… its not theft when emails are stolen for a good cause….”
Ahem…. Pentagon papers, Watergate….. Wikileaks, even…
Put up or shut up.
Racist? No. It’s my firsthand observation from the street corners and it’s supported by all the opinion polls. They show Labour is polling very poorly amongst men, especially men of European descent.
I did NOT say or imply it would be acceptable to deny anyone the right to vote.
On the other hand, I will say that if people with no sense of humour would stop trying to pick fights here, it would be a more interesting site.
Yep. Currently the suggestion is that a full 60% more women support Labour than men. If Labour achieved gender equality in it’s support base and as many men supported Labour as women, Labour would instantly gain 4% to 5% in the polls.
Not if gaining that white male support lost you a portion of the women.
It is ok for men and women to look for different things in leaders.
fights that have been started and quashed many times before i might add
@dale It might be difficult with ones natural inclination to defend ones own privilege, but this video might be useful for understanding why reverse racism is bullshit.
It might also explain (with modifications) why reverse sexism is also bullshit.
It is possible you think you have read much worse because one thing that is becoming very clear from our usual right wing apologists (especially the ones for Slater) is that reading comprehension is quite the weakness.
Ummm… what exactly is his ‘crime’ meant to be here?
As I understand it, the implication is that Farrar has been making use of the National Party Research Unit and posting it as his own work again (or the National Party Research Unit has been making use of Farrar, again).
Not a crime, but, if correct, a post by Farrar that misleads his readers about the providence of its content. A potential fact that might influence how it is read and interpreted.
Hmmm… and didn’t DPF just apply to be registered with the Online Media Standards Authority?
The standards don’t actually directly refer to misrepresenting where/how the information was obtained, or to passing off other people’s work as your own. The nearest I can find is:
He has publically stated how he personally constructed these figures and there was no mention of the National party research unit. I could understand if it was Cameron Slater making these claims how you could suggest he may be lied but not even Nick Hager suggests David Farrar lies in such a blatant manner.
“He has publically stated how he personally constructed these figures and there was no mention of the National party research unit”
which has been shown to be a lie in the past – did you miss the point of the post?
White male apparently.
A pure example of two-track politics as advanced by Hager.
Instead of the National Party themselves posting these 11 graphs (or National giving this to the MSM themselves) to show the differences between National and Labour, they outsource it to their blogs so as to maintain distance and plausible deniability.
Pretty obvious I should have thought.
I don’t get the problem? Some benign (but obviously cherry picked) partisan data gets published. I cant see why the source matters, if it in fact is not Farrar.
Now I’d get the point if it were an allegation of wifebeating or corruption etc, but some economic charts? How does it matter whether the source is David Farrar, a top secret black ops team, or my grandma?
I think for dirty tricks, you actually have to be doing something dirty. Otherwise the bleating just comes across as tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. And yes I have read Dirty Politics.
In my experience of academia, the source of information is a highly important component of assessing how useful that information might be. I would say that it is extremely poor form not to be truthful in citing one’s sources, and the importance of doing so increases when the target audience isn’t seasoned academics who are trained to be sceptical and to cross-check facts.
It matters if the taxpayer was paying the salary of the person providing the information (such as Ede when he was in the PM’s office). Secondly it matters because Farrar and Slater post things stating it is their work when in fact it is from someone else. That is called misleading and deceptive.
Please enlighten us with your definition of dirty? It obviously doesn’t include “underhand”.
“if it in fact is not Farrar.”
well for one hes claiming its his work – so weve got plagarism as a starter and an atempt to hide the real source of the message as a close second
thats a central part of how the whole damn dirty tricks machine works – as outlined in the book which you have read
Isnt pretending that youve knocked a few graphs together when theyve actually come from the nat research unit dishonest? – Why you could even call it a dirty trick couldnt you?
It’s called honesty. An alien concept for the National Party and its promoters since 2004, I believe.
Farrar claims he’s done’s the research and created the graphs himself, when the likelihood is he was given the information. He could easily be honest and say, “Someone pointed out this information which I think you’ll find is really interesting”.
Instead he prefers to be self-aggrandising and deceptive. Probably.
I don’t like being lied to. Do you?
@ nadis: “. And yes I have read Dirty Politics.”
Perhaps Tracey has a point about reading comprehension. I suggest you go read it again. Pay attention to the endnotes as you read.
It’s sweet that you’re trying to understand the hu-mon concept of ‘ethics’.
You must be new to this blog joe90. So don’t be so surprised when someone points out the hypocrisy.
you didn’t point out any hypocrisy.
You mad an unsubstantated claim, which you were then asked to prove.
Your assertion dude, put up or shut up.
( suspect Dunning–Kruger is strong in this one)
Lurgee, calling me thinned skinned. Im just pointing out another example of your hypocrisy. This is so easy. Please carry on.
If it’s so easy, how come you’re failing to come up with either an argument or evidence?
You keep posting. Being oblivious to your own foolishness doesn’t make you less a fool, Sir.
pointing out what dale? if its sooo easy how about engaging in the replies instead of dismissing them
is it not a fact that older white males favour national over labour according to polling data
yes or no?
so – then is it racist or ageist to talk about this group and what effect their abscence would have on an election result?
Fucks sake you little whinger – every one under the sun can talk abut sth auckland and the brown vote – but mention older white males and shit gets real all of a sudden aye
What you on about Dale ? Joe90 is 90. Been here for years, egg.
You hurting darling ? I think so.
I read that Nicky said at a book launch very recently, that he had left out the names of journalists who were complicit in the Dirty Tricks by National and Slater campaign. He knows who they are and some are in the Parliamentary Gallery. He left their names out because he expects that they will reform their work ethics.
Therefore there would be no more “exposures” from the remaining emails.
And now they can sweep it all under the Rug.
It depends if there was anything very damaging in the unpublished emails.
If there is, Rawshark might return?
Also, what is needed now is not more emails, but more corroborating evidence to support all the wrong doings implicated in the emails that have been published so far.
I heard at 5.30pm last night on Prime news that last May many thousands of sites were hacked under a yahoo hack.
NZ Police files, and others in NZ including the Government, Jason Ede and others such as Slater’s account were taken then.
So if TS or you have not heard of this please find that news item as no other MSM has covered this story that should also be all over the MSM as of now.
David, it’s only the “personal” emails referred to in that article. It doesn’t say that there is a gag on publishing any further emails that are in the public interest. See micky’s post just up.
BM, 2.2 you said Slater is not important????
Yes he is the principal witness in this Watergate like affair?
He interfaced with our Government agencies such as SIS and others .
How will we know who else if he is not investigated thoroughly?
Talk about a cover up Nixon tried this I was there in US at the time working, so they had to censure the people who initiated that plot to destroy the opposition Party as Slater did in this case.
Until we get full access through Slater, Ede PM and others we wont get to the truth, so is that what you want?
This is what we now face and you don’t want this right?
But Dotcom is unsure how the public will react, especially following the fallout – or lack of fallout – from Dirty Politics.
“When I read Nicky Hager’s book, I thought, ‘It’s over for John Key’. I didn’t think the New Zealand public would put up with something like that, and I’m really surprised how little impact the book had.
We have been marched over by the worst propaganda since pre-war Germany using virtually the same tactics here.
Stripping out the investigative journalism stables so they could use only brainwashing by the tabloid MSM was always part f their Nazi like agenda.
Now it is coming true, so why should we be surprised?
NZ is now on display to the world as a shinning example of another hollowed out country by a process used by a hollowed out Government and media combined to take away our fragile Freedoms and Democracy.
The Government & MSM are surely our enemies conspiring against all this and our miserable future we see ahead.