Delusions of Honesty
On Thursday Night, was fortunate to enjoy hearing Theodore Dalrymple as an after dinner speaker. Dalrymple, a pen name for Anthony Daniels, was a very witty, thought provoking and entertaining speaker. Plus he has been getting Russell Brown and Chris Trotter upset which can only be positive 
Anyway the absolute gem of the night came when Dalrymple talked about Tony Blair and said that Blair’s biggest problem is he suffers from “delusions of honesty”. Now you could hear the mutters go around the 60 or so people at the room as each of them independently turned to their neighbour and said a variation of “Oh my God, that is the perfect description of Helen Clark – she has delusions of honesty”.
I really do think the description nails it. Clark is, I am sure, absolutely convinced she is an honest person and that she sees no correlation between signing paintings she did not paint, illegally using taxpayer funds on her campaign, lying about Peter Doone etc and her being honest. This is why she so massively over-reacted to the “corruption” tag – she genuinely can not see that hundreds of thousands of NZers could see her or her Government that way.
So thank you to Theodore for his supplying of this wonderful term. It really is a perfect fit.
October 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
we “did not” paint!
October 16th, 2006 at 11:29 am
er “she” – typos everywhere!
October 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
She has plenty of other delusions as well – I bet there will be plenty named here – but some off the top are
1. She has delusions she is a popular and competent Prime Minister
2. She has delusions that people actually like her
3. She has delusions that socialism is good for the prosperity of a country
4. She has delusions about over-taxation (and the stolen tax money being her “precious”)
The list is too long I could go on for weeks on this one – basically she is one deluded person (and quite a venal one at that)
Is it a delusion of grandeur or just cowardice when one goes to ground during a crisis and lets a history teacher front instead?
October 16th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Klark is a classic example of the deconstruction of personal morality that must occur for socialism to be accepted as a legitimate political system. Take “Working For Families” as one example. Nobody with any self respect and any real idea of good or bad would accept money stolen from another person as a handout when they don’t even need it. Under socialism tho, and the policies and propaganda of the Helen Klark greedy for power government, such a perversion of morality is regarded as altruistic. Sick sick sick.
However, the worst example of this is the anti-democratic attacks on the EBs, especially when the election was only won by Labour because the pledge cards were paid for with stolen money. Time to get rid of these dishonest anti-democratic totalitarians. FRESH ELECTIONS NOW.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Anyone seen or heard from Helen Clark?
Missing in action?
October 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Maybe it is as simple as what she was bought up with?
Maybe the rules she lives by today are no different to those ingrained into her as a child!
If this is the case then she can blame her parents.
Hell she’s blamed every other person in the country for her FUCK UPS why not add her parents to the list.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
To counter some of the drivel currently being posted on this site: From Peter mck:
1. She has delusions she is a popular and competent Prime Minister
She has won three general elections
2. She has delusions that people actually like her
See point 1.
3. She has delusions that socialism is good for the prosperity of a country
The economy is going along very nicely and has been for quite a few years now.
4. She has delusions about over-taxation (and the stolen tax money being her “precious”)
The Government has already started making noises about tax cuts.
Is it a delusion of grandeur or just cowardice when one goes to ground during a crisis and lets a history teacher front instead?
Don Brash recently had some time off due to a ‘crisis’. Nationals back up man (Brownlee) is a former high school drafting teacher – what’s your point?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I have to list these, they may have posted before but they are priceless, and a timely reminder
Almost anyone can vote Labour. You only have to stop thinking and vote that way. But to be a faithful Labourite, you have to believe in certain things:
You have to believe that there was no art before government started funding it.
You have to believe that spending $17.4 million dollars a day on welfare isn’t enough.
You have to believe that taxes are too low, but bank fees are too high.
You have to believe that standardised tests are racist, but racial quotas aren’t.
You have to believe that that government funding comes from the government and not from taxpayers.
You have to believe that governments can create economic growth by taxing the economy.
You have to believe in good faith bargaining in the workplace, unless the workplace is the Beehive.
You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach school kids to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth’s climate, and more
affected by yuppies driving 4WDs.
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but homosexuality is natural.
You have to believe that the right to property is a loony right-wing idea, but you believe that Maori have legitimate grievances against the government because their property was taken from them.
You have to believe Helen Clark really does have a loving marriage with Peter Davis.
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
You also believe that people like Steve Maharey and Tariana Turia are the right people to have in charge to make socialism work here.
You have to believe that free trade is unfair, but you shop at Trade Aid stores.
You have to believe that registering guns in the hands of law-abiding firearms licence holders will prevent firearms-related
crimes being committed by criminals who have never had, nor ever will have, a firearms licence.
You have to believe that forcing workers to join unions is a violation of the right to freedom of association, but forcing students to join student unions isn’t.
You have to believe that competition is good for Telecom but bad for ACC.
You have to believe that cigarettes should be banned because they are unhealthy, but believe that cannabis should be legalised as a matter of personal freedom.
You also have to believe that tobacco excise increases will force people to smoke less, but higher income taxes won’t discourage
people from working harder.
You have to believe that it’s bad if Aucklanders to drive to work, but it’s OK for Helen Clark’s husband to commute to Auckland from Christchurch.
You believe that right-wing politicians have been bought off by “big business” even though they gave similar amounts of money to left-wing
and right-wing parties, but you don’t think that left-wing parties have been bought off by even larger amounts of money from unions who
don’t give money to anyone else.
You have to believe that it’s not OK to appoint businessmen to boards of government agencies, but it’s OK to appoint trade
unionists and Labour activists to health boards.
You have to believe that a 160-year-old Treaty is responsible for a recent outbreak of psychological disorders … amongst Maori only.
You have to believe you’re a “liberal”, but you’re only liberal with other people’s money.
You have to believe that religious schools shouldn’t receive any government funding, but Christmas and Easter should continue to be
statutory holidays.
You have to believe that rape is worse than murder, but you don’t think women should be allowed to carry pepper spray for self-defence.
You have to believe that homosexuals should have the right to be able to marry if they want to, but a heterosexual couple should be
considered de facto married after a few years whether they want to be or not.
You have to believe that Michael Cullen’s “charm offensive” worked on the business sector.
You also have to believe that the thought of Michael Cullen having charm isn’t offensive.
You believe that mothers should have the maternity care of their choice, but you trust Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey to choose the
education their children receive for the rest of their life.
You think that tariffs should be re-introduced “to protect kiwi jobs”, but
you buy imported goods from the Warehouse.
You have to believe that the Labour government has a “mandate” to do whatever they please when only 46% of voters voted for them, and
that this mandate justifies them ignoring 92% of voters that voted for harsher
penalties for violent offenders and the 81% of voters who voted to reduce the number of MPs.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
When everything is said and done and Dear Leader and her band of misfits are consigned to the history books, what will have been their legacy to NZ?. My bet is the Clark years will not be judged well by future generations and their legacy to New Zealand will be seen to be alot like aids, a terrible wasting disease where the country slowly withers and dies.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Rocket Boy,
When you’re facing up to paying back illegaly-appropriated and spent money, one would think that the Leader of the Government should make an appearance.
I’m sure if Helen had any problems with her spouse then she would have taken ti… pfffttt….sorry can’t finish that sentence, laughing too hard at the incredulity of it ever happening.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
How can she have problems with her spouse?
They don’t even live in the same island. It’s not like he bugs her by leaving the toilet seat up.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
“delusions of honesty” is another term for ‘rationalisation’. That means we unconsciously engineer our interpretation of reality to believe what we want to believe – everybody is guilty of it I think, but to varying degrees.
Generally speaking, the more neurotic and repressed an individual is, the more easily they can exercise rationalisation as they live, primarily, in a highly ideological world (cut off from feeling and intuition)….and yes, that is exactly what Helen Clark is. Winston Peters is another extreme case too.
Unfortunately once someone has lied to themselves, they tend to be very good at passing the lie onto others as well. Just ask a salesman – they’ll you all about it.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Anyone seen or heard from Helen Clark?
Missing in action?
Helen (Liar) Clark was on Newstalk ZB this morning talking to Paul Holmes, but sounding like Mike Williams asking for donations through the taxpayer funded 0900 number, can Mike spin this one I wonder?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Thanks Simo when will the other 99%be available?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I agree with Peter that Klark has many other delusions, but I disagree that honesty is one of them.
Klark is dishonest, she knows that, & many people suspect it. That’s why she over-reacted about the corruption tag because the truth hurts.
Klark has got to the top not through brilliance, but by share cunning & cloak’n dagger stuff; from the Mike Moore coup right through to the 2005 election. David Lange pretty much uncovered this by saying “as long as her paddock had a good sole of grass the firestorm could consume the rest.”
I reckon she’s proud of this & justifies it to herself by thinking it’s what was necessary for a childless woman to get into power.
Truth & honesty are the most important assets to a politician, so that’s why she’s never going to budge & an inch even when her devious goings-on come to light.
I also think you can’t compare Klark to Tony Blair, even though she supposes to be one of his mates. I’d agree to a point that Tony has delusion of honesty, but unlike Klark he’s prepared to go out on a limit for what he believes in. He is also quite right leaning & often goes against his party. He also has a good sense of humour & a deprecating wit.
Klark is a nasty, un-humorous bitch who villainies everyone who doesn’t vote for her. How often have you heard her refer to nasty right wingers – well that’s half the population of New Zealand.
Klark is deluded, but lying is a practice Klark embarrasses and she knows it. Just don’t expect her to admit it.. ever.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Hmm hopefully the journos listening will pick this up
the electoral overspend is corrupt
“paying it back” therefore is contributing to corrupt spending
so anyone who calls the 0900 number or visits the website,
is a labour party member, or a unionist
is simply an accessory after the fact
to corruption. Thats’ five years inside.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Speaking of delusions of honesty, I dont suppose anyone actually believes Don Brash when he said he was having lunch with poison-pen gossip columnist Bridget Saunders about going to see the film “An Uncomfortable Truth”, do they?
A few days before Bridget Saunders unloaded a bucket related to film of Peter Davis being kissed on the check on election (….get it “An Uncomfortable Truth” ho ho ho ho)
The only delusions Brash had was that this was an acceptable behaviour for the leader of a Party whose top post has previously been graced by such true gentlemen as Jack Marshall, Keith Holyoake and Jim Bolger.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
“the electoral overspend is corrupt
“paying it back” therefore is contributing to corrupt spending”
But not when National does it.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Murray,
Actually it is Helen that leave the seat up, and Davis that sits.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Sonic
once again – how hard is this to understand –
Neither the Chief electoral officer, solicitor general, or auditor general called National’s spending corrupt, or where they referred to the police, for a corrupt practice, nor was their spending mentioned in the AG’s report in the most damning terms possible for an independent civil servant.
You may wish this wasn’t the case. I may wish this wasn’t the case.
But – sadly for NZ – that is the truth.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am
I really do think the description nails it. Brash is, I am sure, absolutely convinced she is an honest person and that she sees no correlation between cheating on his spouse he, lying about his meeting with EBs on his campaign, lying about not planning to sell state owned assets etc and National’s nuclear policy.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Brash has shown his dishonesty and lack of scruples in cheating on his first wife, and as he has yet to deny it, it would alsoappear cheating on his second. If the woman he stood up in public and pledged himself too can’t trust him, why should I trust him with my vote?
October 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Discussions of alleged affairs are off topic. If you go down that path then we’ll be debating alleged sexuality of MPs and whether that counts as deception. Stay above the gutter.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Fair call David. Having said that, there is enough non-scurrilous evidence there to cinvince me that he is not the “honest Don” that some of us here would like to imagine he is.