More allegations against the Exclusive Brethren
Prime Minister Helen Clark has revealed two more outrages done by the Exclusive Brethren.
In an exclusive interview she has accused them of being behind this week’s coup in Thailand. “Look at the parallels” the PM stated. “Both countries have a PM accused of corruption, and claims of an illegitimate election. It is obvious the Exclusive Brethren were behind the Thai coup are are seeking to do the same here”
When asked if her allegations were based on briefings from the SIS and GCSB, she replied “No I heard it from a member of the press gallery whom I can not name”:
The PM also went in to bat to defend her fellow “left” leader – President Chavez of Venezuela over his comparing Bush to the Devil. “Look some people think it was wrong of dear Hugo to compare Bush to Satan, but what they don’t realise is I have proof that Bush is also a member of the Exclusive Brethren”
“It is a well established fact that if one is a member of the Exclusive Brethren, then they are not only equal to Satan, but also corrosive and cancerous. I mean that in a non personal way of course” the PM concluded.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:17 pm
So who’s the one going off the rails here? Or is some hacker blogging under your name, DPF?
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I heard the EB were smuggling fatty foods into school too.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Satire starts with S. So does Sedition. Some people confuse the two. A satirical piece mentioning a coup? Could be prima facie evidence DPF…
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I hear that some Righty bloggers have been reduced to lame attempts at satire in a vain attempt to make the EB story go away.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Kent:
OMG… I really hope you’re taking the piss, because anyone who didn’t notice the blindingly obvious satire in this post before looking at the tags is incredibly dim.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
How silly, Sonic.
Next you’ll be alleging some vast right wing conspiracy.
There is no vast right wing conspiracy.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Maybe today’s satire is tomorrows truth?
Watch this space.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Isn’t satire supposed to be witty?
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Insolent Prick wrote:
“There is no vast right wing conspiracy.”
Yes there is. Its called Gerry Brownlee.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Craig:
So Dim is Kent? I thought Dim was Sonic? Or Sonic was Trevor.
It all is really very confusing.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Sonic, I’d quite happy to repeat the advice I gave you on another thread:
Sorry, but you’re getting as tedious (and creepy) as the extremist cranks in the US who turn every subject back to the malign influence the JOOOOWS have over everything, and the limitless depravity they exhibit to keep the earth in their grip. I know that’s harsh, (and I’m certainly not saying you’re a toxic waste Jew-hater) but this is really what you’re beginning to sound like.
I don’t like the Exclusive Brethren and never will, but it’s sure easy to feel sympathy for anyone on the receiving end of the Wishart-lite rantings of Clark and Sonic (and TVNZ last night) and Co.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Man – that’s one comprehensive Wikipedia article!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Please tell me your making this up..
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I can’t wait until we do have the EB coup here. At least it will get rid of a primeminister (no dictator) who spends our taxes on her election campaigns and refuses to pay the money back and thinks of all these fantasy stories about the EB (maybe to distract atytention from the money spent on the pledge cards). Next she’ll be claiming the EB flew planes into the world trade center on 9/11.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
When asked about the Exclusive Brethren today Don Brash responded:
“Frankly, I wish I’d never had anything to do with them, I’m truly sorry I did, they’re a pain in the neck, and if they want to get involved in politics in NZ and around the world I wish they’d front up like the rest of us, or butt out. I’m sick to death of them.”
Well, no, he didn’t. But if we’re into creative writing, that short statement in the real world would help Brash far more than any “satire”.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I can’t wait until we do have the EB coup here. At least it will get rid of a primeminister (no dictator) who spends our taxes on her election campaigns and refuses to pay the money back and thinks of all these fantasy stories about the EB (maybe to distract attention from the funding of her pledge cards). Next she’ll be claiming the EB flew planes into the world trade center on 9/11.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Really DPF, I have it from redbaiter that it was the ghost of joseph stalin along with that of pol pot that enacted the coup in thailand? Also, IP has some compelling evidence of a NZ Council of Trade Unions plot to flood New Zealand’s reservoirs with a kind of socialist serum developed by the soviets in the 1980s as a counter to Regan’s anti-soviet imperialism.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
“”There is no vast right wing conspiracy.”
Yes there is. Its called Gerry Brownlee.”
Now that is funny. I also heard that the reason Labour got Parekura Horemia into parliament was to provide balance.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
FUCK OFF – this is a piss take surely DPF.
This is New Zealands representative to the world and now she’s seeing little green men.
Prozac Prozac anyone seen my Prozac, (morning discussion in the Clark household.)
Shit I hope for Helen’s sake she is on good terms with the NZ army, if not chances of this Banana Republic being rolled are fairly good.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she actually tried this one! – honestly…..watch for tomorrow’s news!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she actually tried this one! – honestly…..watch for tomorrow’s news!
nice one david
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I confess. It wasn’t me. Honest!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she actually tried this one! – honestly…..watch for tomorrow’s news!
nice one david – like the ‘in a non personal way’ too
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Come on Culma, surely you could tell this WAS a piss-take. Or is it? (insert spooky conspiratorial music).
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Satire is usually funny.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Come on Culma, surely you could tell this WAS a piss-take. Or is it? (insert spooky conspiratorial music).
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Spam wrote – Craig:
So Dim is Kent? I thought Dim was Sonic? Or Sonic was Trevor.
It all is really very confusing.
Spam – they are all CADMUS, get a load of that shit.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
This is good satire:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00313.htm
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I’m a little confused David. I would have expected this kind of satire from a lefty blog.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
brian_smaller, the way she’s been acting lately you’d have to wonder.
In the interview with Mark Sainsbury last evening she certainly looked as radiantly sane as ever.
She looked as though she was trying to project some type of evel onto whoever got in her way.
One thing I can’t work out is why Helens makeup people keep putting so much black eye makeup under her eyes. She’s looked like a baseball player.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
it’s just been brought to my attention (from a very credible un-named source)that a spaceship carrying little men posing as mashed potatoes are due to land at the beehive for a meeting with Helen Clark to discuss beating the EB with their little metal knives.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Must be satire because there is no link for the quotes.
But to be honest, with the way Klark’s has been acting lately, it wouldn’t surprise me.
How do you stop her from just saying what every she wants without any evidence…? Surely that’s wrong for anyone to do let alone the PM of the country. How do you stop her?
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:34 pm
“Must be satire because there is no link for the quotes.”
The “satire” tag at the bottom of the article is a bit of a giveaway, too.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Craig anti-semitism is a very serious issue. To exploit it to make cheap political points is, quite frankly, reckless and deplorable.
Grow up.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Craig anti-semitism is a very serious issue. To exploit it to make cheap political points is, quite frankly, reckless and deplorable.
Grow up.
I thought that anti-semitism was de rigeur amongst lefties these days?
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
trolls don’t get irony but feign concern for anti-semitism. interesting habits. we might get to learn more.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
sonic:
Look at what you just fucking wrote, you moron. Craig was making a fairly valid analogy.
Amongst anti-semites, the Jews are considered to be a fringe group of people who share religious values that are different from non-Jews. Anti-semites also believe that Jews wield a disproportionate amount of wealth, and apply that wealth to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of the world, to advance their evil ways. Anti-semites believe Jews conspire corruptly with the United States to achieve those ends.
Amongst Labour Party supporters, the Exclusive Brethren are considered to be a fringe groupo of people who share religious values that are different from non-EBs. Labour Party supporters also believe that the EBS wield a disproportionate amount of wealth, and apply that wealth to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of the New Zealand, to advance their evil ways. Labour Party supporters believe EBs conspire corruptly with the National Party to achieve those ends.
The point is, the Labour Party–and Helen Clark’s–paranoia about the EBs and their activities, is no different to anti-semites’ paranoia about Jews and their activities.
The issue isn’t about Craig exploiting Jews. It’s about you not wanting to face up to your own intolerance.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
There is no conspiracy anywhere or at anytime. Democracy rules the world, not violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
“The point is, the Labour Party–and Helen Clark’s–paranoia about the EBs and their activities, is no different to anti-semites’ paranoia about Jews and their activities”
Nonsense, and also an attempt to take this debate into very dangerous territory.
Comparing people who have legitimate questions about the Brethren to the Nazi party is beyond the bounds of reasonable political discourse.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Sonic:
What part of “I’m certainly not saying you’re a toxic waste Jew-hater” didn’t you understand? I don’t know if you’re stupid, suffer from a severe reading disability or are just opportunistically dodging the issue yet again. But I don’t see how any reasonable person could come to the conclusion I’ve called you an an anti-Semite – a form of religious and political bigotry I find beneath contempt – as opposed to expressing an honest opinion on the tone and (lack of) substance of your fixation on the Exclusive Brethren.
Keep telling lies about me, Sonic, because I’m not going to stop telling the truth about you.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I did not say you called me an anti-semite Craig, I stated very clearly that you anology was way, way over the line.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I have it on good authority that EB are soon to be found responsible for the Labour Party misappropriating taxpayers’ money during the election campaign.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I have it on good authority that EB are soon to be found responsible for the Labour Party misappropriating taxpayers’ money during the election campaign.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
sonic:
Many people have legitimate questions about Israel. They do not have to be anti-semitic, or Nazis, to have those questions. Nobody is calling you a Nazi.
But it’s perfectly valid to note extreme anti-semitism that links the Jews as being responsible for all the world’s problems, and Helen Clark and Labour Party paranoia about the Exclusive Brethren being behind all the Labour Party’s problems.
It takes a particular kind if irrational thinking to believe that the EBs are behind every bad thing that happens to Labour. That irrational thinking has its roots in basic intolerance, and a willingness to deliberately target and demonise a group in society for purely political gain.
If you were to exchange Helen Clark’s comments about the EBs, and refer to Jews in the way that she refers to the EBs, there would be an outpouring of outrage from throughout the world. You’re only getting away with it now because nobody is standing up and defending the right of the EBs to express themselves in a free democracy.
That is disgusting behaviour.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
ross is this before or after they’ve been beaten with little metal knives : )
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
trolls are very sensitive to the subtleties of argument by analogy. interesting. generally considered to be too stupid to feed themselves. we might get an opportunity to learn more if we coax it out again.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“Craig anti-semitism is a very serious issue. To exploit it to make cheap political points is, quite frankly, reckless and deplorable.
Grow up.”
Easy Sonic. It was a fair parallel to draw – it even remains within the religious genre. Your answer to every thing is “EB this and EB that” – if you want to troll then expect some heat.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
IP, accusations of bigotry or racism are very serious matters.
Be very careful in throwing them around.
Thats my last word on the subject, I’ll just ignore any further posts which seek to conflate legitimate questions with the most dangerous form of racism on the planet.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Sonic head in the sand – that’s the usual trick
IP & GPT make a valid comparison
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
virginblogger
I think you are mixing metaphores there. Hedgehogs curl up into a tiny ball with eyes tight shut prickles facing outwards (thinking happy thoughts), rather than burrying their heads in the sand.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
sonic:
The Labour Party, and you, have made allegations without any foundation to the effect that the Exclusive Brethren are a dangerous, fringe cult, who use nefarious means to plot evil schemes against the Labour Party. Helen Clark, and you, have exploited on public ignorance about the EBs to demonise them, for no other reason than that they disagree with the Labour Party.
If Helen Clark spoke about any other race, or religion, in the way that she refers to the Exclusive Brethren, and her paranoia that they are responsible for all of the problems that her Government faces, there would be an international outcry.
You are attempting to create hostility and bigotry towards them, simply because they disagree with the Labour Party and have conservative values. That is utterly bigoted.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
it ventured out again. we can we learn? trolls think they don’t like “bigotry” and “racism” and in fact will talk of “serious matters” if so confronted. interesting. but easily startled and has withdrawn into cave. but we may get another opportunity to further our study.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Sonic:
Oh, balls – usually your tortured semantic games are midly diverting, but I think we all got what you were trying to say. What I find way over the line is your creepy fixation with the Exclusive Brethren, your willingness to accept any conspiracy theory their name is connected to, your satisfaction to see a religious group you find distasteful (as I do, FWIW) crucified on the basis of innuendo because you don’t like what they believe and you certainly don’t like the politics sone of it’s members espouse.
Well, my boy, if you’re going to be a faith-based conspiracy nutter then IMHO my analogy is perfectly apt. If you don’t like that, take a good hard look at yourself.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
lol peter, my mistake
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Sonic,
In your last comment I think you have aptly demonstrated your problem:
…with the most dangerous form of racism on the planet
Sonic – this implies that some rascism is not as bad as others. I argue that it is all disgusting. However, as others have pointed-out, you seem to think that bigotry towards Jews is somehow worse that bigotry towards the Exclusive Bretheren. Could you please explain why?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Spam, heard of Auschwitz?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
IP well said – if we talked about any race the way labour is with regard to the EB, the usually extremely PC NZ would have something to say – even if we singled out Maoris there would be an outcry
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Next she’ll be claiming the EB flew planes into the world trade center on 9/11.
It’s moment’s like this think it would be worth putting some kind of brain-counter at the end of satire to see how many people take it literally.
I’m sure our faith in human intelligence would be shaken.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
hedgehog shuffles into a bar…
asks for a Muckraker
“would that be shaken or stirred sir?”
“Oh Stirred of course” replied the hedgehog…
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
we’re in luck its back and perhaps we have the first every evidence of the actual use of a rhetorical question by a troll. this has been rumored to have occured in the First Age. interesting. has Sauron been breeding again? perhaps the black art of GE. but we must wait for further evidence.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Sonic – Auschwitz? Yes, I’ve been there. What’s your point? That bigotry is fine as long as its not genocide?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:45 pm
“you seem to think that bigotry towards Jews is somehow worse that bigotry towards the Exclusive Bretheren”
Got your answer then haven’t you.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Peter – you forgot about staring fixedly at quickly approaching bright lights…
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
now, let us be careful, the troll is very very angry and when angry they are known to be unpredictable. they may take a bit of food and calm down. but we are learning a great deal.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
or being squashed…
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
So sonic – do you think that rascism towards blacks is better or worse than rascism towards asians? Are all your moralities so horribly relative?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Spam are you going to join in with the loonies arguing that questioning the EB’s role in the last election is the equivelent of shouting Sieg Heil in 1933?
It’s a indefensible and desperate position mate.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pm
No Sonic, I’m not doing that at all. I’m just pointing out that bigotry is bigotry, no matter who its aimed at. No bigotry is any more ‘justifiable’ than any other bigotry. It YOU who is trying to rationalise your prejudices.
Good luck with that, but I find it offensive.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
So asking what exactly the role of an secretive organisation during the last election is now “bigotry”
Truly the last resort of a desperate argument.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
trolls when given a bone will worry it for a very long time. we see this here in a remarkable demonstration that is a privilege to observe. our patience is bringing much reward.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
And now the troll is truly desperate as he finds that the stench of his own filth has even driven away his mates and allies…
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
sonic:
Your position is indefensible. It is a position based on a desire to incite hatred against a group with different religious beliefs and conservative political values, for no reason other than that you disagree with their values.
You have not just questioned their activities in funding a pamphlet during the last election. Helen Clark, and the Labour Party, have claimed that the EBs have got PIs following her, that they are running a smear campaign against her, that they are bank-rolling Investigate Magazine, and that they are in secret cahoots with the National Party to get rid of Helen Clark.
That kind of paranoia and hatred-mongering is perfectly comparable to the lunatic anti-semites, in 2006, who talk about the Jewish World Order.
You don’t like having to face your own bigotry. Tough shit. Deal with it.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Asking questions = inciting bigotry.
Nonsense, utter balderdash.
You really are getting desperate IP, I wonder why?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
not the use of the “=” sign. does this suggest more specialised breeding by Sauron or is just mimicry? interesting. but we must await further opportunities for observation.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
sonic you say………
“Comparing people who have legitimate questions about the Brethren to the Nazi party is beyond the bounds of reasonable political discourse.”
The Exclusive Brethrens as NZ citizens still enjoy the freedom – at this stage -to spend their money as they wish within the confines of the law during an election, something it is apparent the Labour Party have not done.
That puts the EBs in not only the ‘very much cleverer” camp, but in the higher moral ground one as well.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
whinging on about the EB doesn’t detract from the fact that labour has been caught with its grubby little hand in the till stealing its way to win the election.
Pay it back, it’s what the country wants – oh but silly me labour don’t actually give a stuff what the country want/need, doesn’t suit their agenda
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Sonic,
I’ve noticed whenever you get pinned you ask the question why your accuser is so desperate.
Just an observation.
xxx
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Sonic, what you say is “ask(ing) legitimate questions”, most other people here say is smearing. Can you please explain to me how referring to the EB as a ‘wacky cult’, as Dear Leader has on several occasions, is, in any way, ‘asking a legitimate question’?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I think you will find Spam that the owner of this site has also called the EB a “cult”
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
i think you will find sonic that the owner of this site did not use the word ‘whacky’
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I would hope not VB as that is not an actual word.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
yes Clark likes real words like ‘corrosive’ and ‘cancerous’ doesn’t she?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
the day draws to a close and Legolas grows weary from the burden of troll watching. i will need to lay down my arrows and partake of sleep. to my fellow companions, who are not as blessed with boyish good looks, quick wits and long blonde hair as i, have courage for although the path is long it is in the interests of science that we undertake this dangerous mission.
but before you go it is necessary to warn you of the dreaded “xxx”. this is originally taken from the Black Speech by trolls and they believe it to be an incantation of instant death to hobbits, elves and men alike. but have no fear, we now know this to be merely a symbol for a beverage of an alcoholic nature common in the land of Mordor. stupid trolls.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Craig:
No I didn’t see the tags. I wasn’t aware that DPF did satire. Having read it, I am still not aware that he does satire. Satire needs to be clever and funny, neither of which it is. Nor does it seem to be DPF’s usual fare. Bad satire is just hysteria by a different name.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Perhaps VB he was using the word “cult” in it’s positive and complimentary sense?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Another thread dominated by Sonic, sigh!
Wouldn’t be so bad if reasoning with Sonic wasn’t so bloody futile.
Sonic has a little bag of tricks full of distractions, irrelevancies and prejudices that are happily sprinkled around to shut down any logical discussion.
DPF’s right, you must be a Labour MP.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but is is a beautiful day in Dunedin, and I am going to sit in the sun and drink beer. I suggest the rest of you do the same!
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Pardon me for breathing Lance
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
perhaps sonic Clark was using the words ‘corrosive’ & ‘cancerous’ in a vitriolic sense?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
That would be a ‘whacky’ thing to say mate.
xxx
S
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
farewell effete Legolas, but a final song to see us on our way –
Troll-y-oh-ly-oh
The sun might stone-yee-oh
The arrows may slay-yee-oh
But reason flies on by yee-oh.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
has anyone wondered why the hedgehog hangs out here (other than the obvious to keep a barometer eye on the rights & to meddle & distract)I find it sad that he doesn’t mix with his own kind in the ‘whacky’ ‘corrupt’ corrosive’red world
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Sonic:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whacky
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
the dreaded “xxx” of the Black Speech! But have no fear – recall, Legolas the wise but effete has forewarned us.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
“DPF’s right, you must be a Labour MP.”
Clayton Cosgrove.. is there anyone dumber? Ah… Diane Yates.. Ruth Dyson?? How about Steve Chadwick?? Georgie Hawkins?? Naaah, they’re all as dumb as shit, but they’re not that dumb… Sonic is a politically green fresh faced wet behind the ears dull witted uni student who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Well there you go Spam, you learn something every day!
I’ll leave you, and the crazy LOTR chap to it.
xxx
S
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
or that’s what we’re supposed to think red..
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
If the name was changed to Winston then it would be very believable.
BTW: I heard the Exclusive Bretheren are linked to Al Qaeda, part of the axis of evil and are very likely to have weapons of mass destruction!!!
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I really hope that all of the individuals in this thread whining away about bigotry directed at the EB have NEVER said anything that could remotely be construed as bigoted about Muslims.
Just saying. Because I’d be horrified to find out that hypocrisy was a cornerstone of political debate.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
to sidetrack the thread slightly, here’s an interesting topic that came up.
Are there different levels of seriousness regarding bigotry?
big‧ot‧ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
I’m inclined to think so.
I think that people who are more vulnerable in society/the world are more in need of protection.
For example, someone asked whether it was better or worse to be bigoted against blacks or asians. Let’s pretend that China is the dominant world power economically, say even more so than the US is currently. I would argue that it’s more ‘ok’ to be bigoted against chinese then since they are in more of a position of power.
Yes?
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Markw,
There are several million Jews worldwide, and about 45000 EBs.
Using your logic, bigotry against the EBs would have to be the worst of the lot, because of their low numbers.
I’m not sure I subscribe to that.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
krimsonlake:
If you want hypocrisy, you will find that the first people who yell “RACIST!” and “BIGOT!” whenever somebody from the right raises what they believe are “legitimate questions” about fundamentalist Islam, and some of the negative aspects of some cultures, are the same people who claiming to raise “legitimate questions” about the Exclusive Brethren, while referring to them as a “whacky” and “dangerous” cult.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
As long as it’s not that bloody speights weasle piss Andrew I’m with you.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Well if the EB had a marginal case against the Govt with the HRC, it’s getting less and less marginal with every Labour correspondence.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Did the National party’s Nick Smith not label them a wacky and dangerous cult also, or was it a dangerous and brainwashing cult?
I considered it a legitimate comment rather than ‘racist’, certainly in the context he used it at least. Craig’s analogy was a stretch, they is no comparison in my books.
This organisation (cult) is no friend of either side of politics, even though they are greater enemies of one side. This crowd is a poisoned chalise for the National party.
cheers, james cairney
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:49 pm
James C.:
To keep jacking this back to DPF’s original post, I’ll stand by my comment that whatever I think of the Exclusive Brethren (nothing at all, FWIW) I’m not going to uncritically swallow every conspiracy theory their name is attached to, and the increasingly hysterical attempts to smear the National Party and Don Brash by association.
Have a problem with that?
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Craig, around the time of Smith’s comments I was aware of a similar story in Auckland involving the EB’s and a family custody situation. Very, very, ugly.
In my opinion, the EB’s are capable of anything, and I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I taint Brash by association.
I will have no part of the grand “right-wing, left-wing” conspiracy bollocks, and certainly no part of a grand Semitic conspiracy.
The best thing National can do is totally distance themselves from this lot, and right wing bloggers drawing comparisons with the Jews to discredit those voicefully opposed to them merely looks like defence of them. Then in the same breath you complain about association?
Now, I know you would have read Smith’s speech (google it if you haven’t), and I personally (and for my own reasons) believe every word he said. If you don’t believe him then feel free to continue drawing your comparisons to the Jews, and shut the complaining up about association, because thats what your defence of them fosters.
And as for your “have a problem with that?”, i suggest you grow up, I couldn’t give a damn what opinion you hold, and didn’t expect my criticism to offend you.
cheers, james cairney.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
James C.:
Take a deep breath, James. I stand by everything I’ve written, including my assertion that Sonic is a shrill conspiracy theorist whose cranky tone and (lack of) substance where the EB is concerned reminds of anti-Semitic wingnuts I’ve locked horns with before. People whose political and religious views I loathe are as entitled to fair treatment in the media, and by politicians, as everyone else. If you don’t agree with that then, sir, you are the one who’s crossed a very dangerous line in my book.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
“people whose political/religious views are entitled to fair treatment by the media etc”
Fair enough Craig.
Where we differ is I believe this organisation has not been treated unfairly (with the exception of Mallard). In my opinion they deserve harsh criticism, not for who they are or what they represent, but for what they have done as an organisation in many cherished facets of our little democracy.
And I’m not referring solely to the pamphlets or the alleged PI incident, although the former was certainly underhanded.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 pm
james c.:
Well, I don’t diagree with you that some Exclusive Brethren do deserve harsh criticism. (And notice the qualifier. Would you tar all Quakers with the same brush as Richard Nixon? Condem all the billion plus Muslims on this planet because of the rancid lunacy of their most hateful co-religionists?)
All I’m saying is that there is a line between rational and temperate criticism of the proven activities of individuals and the kind of hysterical conspiracy mongering and unjust demonisation of whole religious groups (after all, every religion is a ‘whacky and dangerous sect’ to an athiest) that also does little honour to a democracy.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:04 pm
It seems to me, in light of tonight’s admission by Wayne Idour that he was lying when he denied investigating senior Labour politicians, and admitting that he was hired to do it by members of the Exclusive Brethren, that Idour himself, and those members of the Exclusive Brethren that hired him and another so far un-named PI, might well face charges of treason for plotting to destabilise the political process and overthrow the duly elected government of the nation .
That’s what treason is.
That’s what they did.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
It seems to me, in light of tonight’s admission by Wayne Idour that he was lying when he denied investigating senior Labour politicians, and admitting that he was hired to do it by members of the Exclusive Brethren, that Idour himself, and those members of the Exclusive Brethren that hired him and another so far un-named PI, might well face charges of treason for plotting to destabilise the political process and overthrow the duly elected government of the nation .
That’s what treason is.
That’s what they did.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Just a small point Craig, I stated “what they have done ‘as an organisation’”. I would not deliberately tar all EB’s, and there moves are all as an organisation, as opposed to some offshoot.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Philip:
I think the allegations Idour made (and I’ve said elsewhere why I’m treating the whole thing with scepticism) are quite bad enough, without going off the deep end quite so quickly.
You, sir, might want to take a very deep breath and consider why treason is considered such a serious crime and nobody should throw that word around quite as casually as you do.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 pm
You need force for treason.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 am
Treason is defined as attempting to overthrow the established government, or, in some dictionaries, conspiring to overthrow the established government, outside due process.
Our constitution provides a number of ways for a government to fall.
If they lose the support of the majority in Parliament on a vote of confidence (budget votes are always votes of confidence)
If they lose at an election
are the only two that are important here.
It is clear that we are seeing a deliberate and wilful attempt by a small politically motivated group of people who may be mebers of the Exclusive Brethren sect to subvert our political process in order to bring about a loss of confidence in the government.
That looks like treason to me. They are plotting to overthrow the dulky elected government. Treason doesn’t require force when lying, betrayal and dishonesty can be brought into play.
I suggest we need a Royal Commission to investiugate all these claims, and to inverstiugatze the actions of the Exclusive Brethren group over the past ten years.
Treason or other charges might well folly such an inquiry.
One of our most important strengths in New Zealand is our respect for the rule of law. We should be very careful indeed when we see anything that looks like underming that rule of law.The Exclusive Brethren, who are not elected, who reject the democratic principle and who hjave already demonstrated their poitical engagement and commitment, must be made accountable for their actions.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:38 am
To all Mr. Brash-Apologists:
Now a direct witness has appeared to assist Labour’s prosecution of charges against the hapless Mr Brash & co & his Exclusive Brethren associates. This witness says he has heard from others that the other side have been unseemingly investigating National Party MPs. The man’s a trapped fool. And this is hearsay.
The continued Exclusive Brethren association with the NZ National Party (even if only in the minds of the average kiwi voter) should seriously damage the NZ National Party’s chances at a next election – it doesn’t go away. Voters remember. Labour will recall everything in order to use it ruthlessly. And, these will be fairly ruthless jabs into a weakened opposition (weakened because Mr Brash seems complicit and keeps being found out ‘with his pants down’, so to speak). He is an habitual offender, it seems. Further, the Exclusive Brethren (as political activists) necessarily keep making the national political news – working for or alongside the National Party. The facts will emerge, but the impression is overwhelmingly negative (again). So, more damage is likely. Mr. Brash has always looked culpable wrt his knowledge of the foregoing – Nixonian, in fact. Many kiwis think he sanctions this type of behaviour – why?
Well, in recent weeks we have learnt that Mr Brash likes to skulk about New Zealand with his pants down while away from his 2nd wife and his family.
Mr Brash is a sexagenarian love cheat.
And a political fool.
I argue that none of this would have occurred if the perverse Mr. Brash had not been appointed to our House of Commons. Many of you miss this point, or tolerate this abuse. He is an appointee. This is elitist.
Why do Craig and Mr. Farrar & others here prefer a political appointee and fool as well as hopless love cheat like the hapless Mr Brash? Character is everything, guys. Your Mr Brash never had it.
Between the Exclusive Brethren hiring private investigators to engage in seemingly criminal harrassments, and Mr. Brash’s own licentiousness and disregard first for his family’s needs and second for those of his employer (the National Party), Mr Brash is indeed ‘cancerous’ and unworthy for NZ public office. No argument, guys. Our PM – who is rather clever, strong and stable- has described this quite aptly. I think the PM ‘has Mr Brash over a barrel’. With Mr Brash’s trustworthiness disappearing (at home and at work), the NZ National Party’s voice is seriously weakened. This aids the Government’s continued incumbency. Wise up everyone. I support National, but Labour (still) appear stronger, despite all. Why? Well, look at who Mr. Brash is. You guys are being led a fast one.
I want to draw the clandestine Mr Brash-supporters out on this blog. Craig is one of them. But of course, so is Mr. Farrar. They offer a false (& undemocratic) choice: Craig and Farrar et al in effect are saying to you, the reader:
“Either you support Mr. Brash or you are not a NZ National Party supporter”.
This is a False Choice. It is wrong. It is dishonest of them. It is undemocratic. It smacks of ulterior motives. And, in the end, it is a type of disloyalty to an old political institution – the NZ National Party. Mr Brash is not, has never been, nor will be the NZ National Party. Craig and Mr Farrar et al will argue that they work quite diligently for the NZ National Party (and they may do, only as so many others do), and they may cry: ‘how dare you speak so disloyally’ while not admitting to you, the reader, that the National Party remains unelectable while their Mr Brash remains in place. He is far from most people’s choice of leader. He is their choice. Others choose differently.
I am assuming that each man is not a leeming. However, I think that some of them are naively in awe of this former bank administrator with major zipper problems and a seriously deranged political compass; Craig and Mr Farrar et al have no excuse for thinking uncritically about the deeply flawed and hapless Mr Brash. None whatsoever.
Yet they continue blindly – like a herd of sheep. Mr Farrar believes any poll bounce is attributable to his choice (Mr Brash) and unthinkingly slaps cause and effect upon it. Associations don’t exist. Craig is a good footman – but he rants.
All of you now risk being supporters on the wrong side of NZ National Party history – and risk this very soon. How are you going to like that feeling? You will probably change your blooger names, I suspect, and begin to support Mr English, Key or Brownlee.
Mr Farrar has taken to writing fictional posts. A strange first symptom that he is disturbed perhaps. Already, he sees the hawks circling.
If I were a betting man, I’d wager that Ms. Clark will prevail. The NZ National Party must try something different.
Who has a superior political compass to these Brash-Apologists? I do.
I welcome sensible discussion.
Best,
James
For a Winning NZ National Party
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:56 am
What utter nonsense from Phillip. Dictionary definitions have nothing to do with it, what matters is the law, which states that someone can be charged for treason who “Uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand”.
If you are ever in court for something, please entertain us all by conducting your own defense based on pointing out where the Judge’s understanding of legal terms differs from your dictionary.
You are suggesting someone should be charged with treason for acting within the law, exercising their democratic right to criticise the activities of the government of the day, just because you support the government of the day. That is outrageously antidemocratic, but very typical of the left.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:39 am
LOL James, You must have just finished interrogating a bottle or two before you wrote that “ramble through you consciousness”..
Look at the time that you posted it ??
Bet you are overhung now !!
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:54 am
Section 73 Crimes Act 1961 may be of more interest than your dictionary definition of treason Philip, considering your concern for the rule of law and all.
But I am interested in your move to have the EB’s ‘inverstiugatzed’, it sounds fun. (whats next, a sscchhhhnap elechin?)
cheers
james cairney (a different james)
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
right all those making light of the breathren’s secret campagien against the government can read this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402616
and then aplogize!
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
James:
I’d welcome sensible discussion on what are serious allegations that lower politics in this country into a whole new sewer, but as ’sensible’ has never entered into your hysterical anti-Brash rants before I don’t see you changing your tune now.
Red:
If you think Wayne Idour is such an unimpeachable source, perhaps Labour or some person/s connected with the Labour Party owe John Key and Don Brash a lot more than an apology. Or is it a matter of believe what you find politically convenient, and ignore the rest?
I think it’s blindingly clear where Red and James stand, this interview is nothing more than an occasion to pimp some partisan agenda. I think many of us, on all sides of the political divide think these allegations smear us all and deserve to be taken seriously, but with all due scepticism.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Red,
I don’t think anyone has been making light of the EB’s activities. I think the point is that National are not responsible for what they do.
No change there.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
As long as it’s not that bloody speights weasle piss
Murray, I don’t touch the stuff. We have another local brew – Emmerson’s – which is very good!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
James Cairney – sorry about the wild typos. I must have clicked ’send’ before I finished entering the corrections, only to discover that the uncorrected version had already appeared. The rection time in the blog is sometimes quite long.
Yes, I’ve read the 1961 Crimes Act and I think the issue is really what the Act means by the use of “force”. Would a Court in 2006 hold that suborning, browbeating, pestering or threatening a person with disclosure was the use of force? I think they might.
Do we know that Idour and his mates never came on strong to informants, never threatened to tell their employers or their partners something harmful if they did not give the answers Idour and his mates wanted? Never stood over therm and told them they would be in trouble unless they spilled all their beans? Would a Court in 2006 find that to be the use of force?
Would a Court hold that by engaging PIs to carry out such behavior, the EBs were “conspiring”? I think they might.
That is why I reached the conclusion that a charge of treason might be brought.
I think if we were ever to be able
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
A charge of treason would be ridiculous. Public ridicule will be quite punishment enough to show that the EB choosing to become secretly involved in politics has been totally counterproductive for their own cause. It should be a lesson to them and a lesson to anyone who wants their support.
Depends what they’ve done, of course. I only know what’s been made public, and I get the feeling quite a bit more is going to come out. I think Labour is dishing out rope at the moment for whoever wants to hang themself in the most humiliating way possible.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
How about sedition, that seems to be the anachronistic cudgel of choice for touchy politicians.
Or we could break with tradition and actually try being vaguely rational.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Craig, in absence of any real facts, I’d keep the possibility of treason open without thinking it likely. It still is a crime. It still is something people can commit. As is sedition.
But both are pretty serious charges, and I’d think the proof onus very high. Then again, Selwyn would probably differ with me on that.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Ben:
“In absence of any real facts…” – yes, a very good reason why we all should be taking a deep breath and not drawing up the indictments for treason quite yet. Just a thought.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Oh, and here’s another thought: In New Zealand, treason was considered a crime of such magnitude it was punishable by the death penalty until 1989 – twenty eight years after capital punishment for all other crimes was abolished.
That suggests something, don’t you think?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Problems with the EB’s:
1. The values they espouse are exceedingly fundamentalist and retrograde. This style of belief is a problem in whatever context it arises. We know they are profundly homophobic, anti-science and probably are actively racist as well. If these kinds of extreme beliefs were being spouted by an Islamic sect, nobody here would be defending them, neither left nor right.
2. A long a well-known record of deeply aithoritarian behaviour within their church ranks. If only a fraction of what has been written about them is true, they are petty-monsters who regard themselves above the rules that apply to the rest of us.
3. Their behaviour has been demonstrably underhand and secretive. Their leadership appears to have no accountability to their membership.
4. Up to this point they would be just another bunch of nutters, but on top of that they have access to a wealthy global organisation to fund significant interventions in our local political process.
5. The Westminster system holds to the separation of state and religion for very good reasons, yet this sect appears willing to openly defy this convention.
The sum of the above makes them both mad and denagerous. The correct step is to isolate them at every level, socially, economically and most especially politically.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Yes Craig, it suggests it’s not a crime that a rational person would think of committing. But are we dealing with rational people?