The hollowness of the Hollow Men
This is a long detailed post. Half of me says I shouldn’t bother doing this, but I think it would be useful for the record to illustrate that the very deceptive practices that Nicky Hager condemns in The Hollow Men, are in fact used by Hager in The Hollow Men.
The material I am going to focus on has been used by Nicky Hager in the Hollow Men, and has featured in the play and in the just-released film.
If you attended the Wellington premiere of the Hollow Men last weekend will have been given a flyer for the film. On the front page it features a quote from what is said to be an email from Peter Keenan to Don Brash. The line is: “Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals….while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponents.”
That rather nasty quote, along with others in the book, is used to introduce the alleged malicious intent behind the Orewa speech on Treaty issues. Hager would have you think Keenan was telling Brash that this is how he should operate and in Hager’s book (refer bottom of p85) this line is presented as Keenan “quoting with approval United States Republican strategist David Horowitz”.
But, as with pretty much everything in the Hollow Men, Hager stripped out the context of the quote to distort the meaning. In fact in this case he manages to reverse the meaning entirely.
What Hager failed to mention was that those words were actually from a six page bullet point summary, sent as an attachment in an email, of essays in two books by David Horowitz. The attached document was a straightforward summary of what somebody else had written. Those that want to check what follows can simply get the books: The Art of Political War and other Radical Pursuits, and How to Beat the Democrats, and other Subversive Ideas. They are interesting essays, regardless of what your political views might be.
The so-called quotes from Peter Keenan, are actually direct quotes from the summary he compiled of the Horowitz articles. This was not an instruction or advice from Keenan to Brash on what Brash should do, but part of a six page book summary.
It turns out that, in the articles summarized by Keenan, Horowitz was describing how the political left conduct their political battles, and pointing out how hopeless the political right is by comparison. He is reminding conservative politicians that they need to engage at an emotional level if they want to be as effective politically as the left. The quotes attributed to Keenan are in fact Horowitz describing how those on the left operate.
Here are a few more quotes from that bullet point summary to give you the flavour of what it was about. Hager didn’t use these. To put this in an NZ context, I have substituted “the left/left-wing” for Democrats, and “conservative” for Republican.
“The right often seem to regard political combat as they would a debate at the Oxford Union, as though winning depended on rational arguments. The audience is not made up of academics. You have 30 seconds to make a point. Even if you had time to make an argument, the audience in the middle (the ones you need to reach) are not paying attention or would not get it.”
“The left come to party politics out of socialist organisations, trade unions, and an assortment of social crusades (abortion, racial grievances, and environmental concerns). They are combat-ready before they begin their political careers. Conservatives train in boy scout troops and graduate to chambers of commerce and rotary clubs. Except for the pro-life missionaries in the conservative coalition, Conservatives are innocents abroad when it comes to political war.”
The so-called Keenan “quotes” that have been referenced in the Hollow Men book, play and film, are drawn from a section which summarises what Horowitz calls the Four Principles of Politics: ie. politics is a war of Emotions, of Position, is about Fear, is about Hope. Hager pulls quotes from the summary explanations of these points. I will give you the full quote (which was itself a summary of a fuller treatment by Horowitz in his book), and highlight what Hager used:
Politics is a War of Emotions: For the great mass of the public, casting a vote is not an intellectual choice, but a gut decision, based on impressions that may be superficial and premises that could be misguided. Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals. It is the ability to manipulate the public’s feelings in support of your agenda, while mobilising passions of fear and resentment against your opponent.
Politics is about Fear: You must not only convince a majority that you are their friend, you must get them to fear your opponent as their enemy. Anger, fear and resentment are the most potent weapons in the Left-wing arsenal. They are powerful emotions that drive voters to the polls, and if they are not countered these emotions will bury your Gold Stars every time.
Horowitz used the term “Gold Star Republican” to describe the typical managerial type of conservative who thinks he can have a calm, rational debate on policy and win the day.
Thus, by stripping all the context from this “quote”, Hager completely misrepresents Keenan.
If you look at the e-mail in context, the obvious and reasonable interpretation of all of this was that Keenan was warning Brash what he was up against, and encouraging him to try and connect emotionally with the audience, use less technocratic language, and so forth. In the fuller treatment in the book, regarding the politics of fear, Horowitz writes:
“No matter how much conservatives may deplore such tactics, no matter how fervently they wish that electoral contests would turn on good policies and good principles, it is not in their power to change the reality of political war”.
Lets finish here with another couple of bullet points from that summary document, quotes that Hager could have used, but for obvious reasons did not.
“The left rely on Bribery and Fear. Much of the electorate has an enthusiasm for big government. Voters look to government for entitlements, looking to the political left to supply them. And the left recruits its supporters through taxpayer-funded programmes that buy their votes. The obstacles to this tendency is the individualism of the culture, the bankruptcy of most of the left’s programmes (poor incentives, no allowance for individual responsibility), and the political right itself which is infused with middle-class energy and entrepreneurial values and collectively represents the politics of reform.”
“Marxism may be dead, but a Marxist morality play provides the ordnance for left-wing political attacks…..In political battle the political left provides the search and destroy teams that accuse the right of racism and sexism, of polluting the environment and of abusing old people, women and children. The passions that motivate the political left are self-righteousness and hate.”
Looking back at the Labour Party’s 2005 campaign, and the way Hager has operated here, this analysis looks rather perceptive.
What is clear from all this, is that the use of that quote in the flyer for the film, and in the book, and in the play, was shamefully dishonest. Hager in his book, Dean Parker in the play, and Alister Barry in the film, all feature this astoundingly dishonest so-called “quote” – deliberately out of context and misapplied – to cast a malicious light on some simple briefing material forwarded to Brash.
Hager and Barry, if they wish to display the integrity they claim to champion, should order the current flyer to be shredded, and the film reworked to be at least marginally more honest.
Although integrity seems to be in short supply here. Some centre left bloggers have noted with disapproval that the film uses some covert filming of Peter Keenan. Grant Robertson said:
The only bum note in the documentary for me was the use of what appeared to be covert filming of Brash’s speech writer Peter Keenan. Shots of him opening his curtains in the morning, and reading the paper just felt a bit creepy to me.
I am yet to see it, but when I heard about it, creepy is indeed the word for it.
Even more ill-conceived are the other shots of Peter Keenan. One of the most interesting characters in Hager’s book the former economist privately disagreed with his leader’s racial policies even while he was writing the speeches promoting them. Keenan’s emails are quoted extensively in the film over shots of him wandering around inside his home watering his plants and reading the newspaper. The footage is hand-held and appears to have been shot covertly from a distance; Keenan does not seem to know he is being filmed and these sequences all have a queasy, paparazzi-cum-stalker like quality to them. Instead of questioning Kennan’s ethics as a speech-writer I found myself doubting Barry’s ethics as a director.
Danyl also noted:
As with his previous films, Barry makes extensive use of archival footage accompanied by voice-over narration; various experts including political scientist Jon Johansson and Christchurch Press political editor Colin Espiner provide additional commentary (although Espiner agreed to be interviewed by Barry he was not told it was for The Hollow Men).
Stephen Stratford at NZBC comments:
Why on earth would Barry not have told Espiner the purpose of the interview? And having interviewed Espiner, why did he not interview Keenan instead of stalking him in this, frankly, creepy way?
If you won’t front up to your subject and talk to him, you shouldn’t pretend that what you do is journalism. And if you don’t tell someone whom you do talk to what the real purpose of the interview is, you are engaged in deception. Isn’t that what The Hollow Men was all about?
The irony is rich isn’t it? A deceptive book and a deceptive film that take the moral high ground to lecture on deception?
Finally let’s finish on a lighter note. The flyer to the film also features a quote from a Keenan email to Brash, this time a genuine one. It is “the secret of success is sincerity and conviction…once you can fake that you’ve got it made”. That quote is so obviously Peter winding Don up, with a joke that reworks a well-known line by Groucho Marx, that it is amazing Nicky Hager didn’t get it. So Hager quotes a Groucho Marx joke as if it was serious political advice.
Hager, Parker and Barry need to get out more. Those on different sides of politics hold different views about which policies will build a better nation. When you start assuming that people who hold different views from you are in some way evil, then what you need is to get counseling – not write a book, play or make a film. But hey when the Government will give you money to do so, one can understand some of the motivations.
Now this all raises a wider question: given the scale of misrepresentation in this instance, it is impossible to take anything else in this book at face value. If you can make something sinister out of material like this, you can do it with anything. Removal of context is the simplest way to deceive.And unlike blogs where you can link through to the full quote, Hager’s works leave you blind as to the context.
Hager subtitled his book, A Study in the Politics of Deception. It was indeed – but maybe not in the way he intended.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:09 am
This is useful for those of us who base our political decisions on facts, but as you point out the left uses emotion; nonetheless thank you.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:24 am
It goes to show that the way that Hager makes his story is an exercise in sophism – taking small bits of information (sic. out of context) then wrapping them up as evidence for conclusions he has allready come up with. As opposed to looking at the evidence THEN coming up with a conclusion.
We have been duped as a nation by sensationalism by a fellow looking to make up storys to support his own personal agenda. Almost makes you think of Winston.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am
A half truth is the most cowardly of lies ~ Mark Twain.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Who are you speaking on behalf of? Not me!
July 25th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I expect a long drawn out squeal from Hagar and his supporters when they read this.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Yep Alex. Nome will quote from wiki in at least 5 places to counter this post and him and Tane will link extensively to the standard as absolute proof that Hagar walks on water.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals….while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponents.”
Oh, I get it now. Keenan was suggesting to Brash that he shouldn’t adopt those tactics, but leave it up to the left to fight political battles in that manner. He was warning Brash not to succumb to the temptations of fighting dirty.
Thanks so much for enlightening us all about Keenan’s true intent in using the quote.
Masterley, not a single squeal, but a lot of guffaws. ROTFLMAO
PS I thought Keenan came out of the book (haven’t seen the film as it was booked out in Auckland well in advance) pretty well on the whole.
[DPF: Now you are doing misleading context like Hager, Hager made this quote the centrepiece of the publicity and linked it to the Orewa speech. And in fact it was an extract from a six page book review about how the left operate. The context was Brash needed to connect emotionally with people, but that is not the same as advocating the use of fear as a weapon. And if you look at 05, it was the left who used fear]
July 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
so..dpf..
.we can take it that..
..aside from these ‘detailed’ quibbles…
..it’s all pretty much ‘on the money’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: It is all about context. Nicky would have you believe there was a deep dark conspiracy. The reality was fairly mundane - a political leader gets political advise and they release policies which are more moderate than their personal views. This does not mean those policies would not have been followed in Govt. Clark adopts a more moderate policy line than her personal beliefs also. This is not conspiracy but being responsive to public opinion]
July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
But you do have to recognise that the Left have been very successful at sticking to the script and repeating phrases such as “National’s secret Trusts”, “National Party attempts to rort the electoral system with the assistance and connivance of the Exclusive Bretheren” and so on.
You only had to hear Minister King in the House yesterday screeching these words again and again to recognise a consistent programme of subliminal brainwashing that has been going on for years and years.
Thinking people (by and large) say that this sort of rubbish is not worth wasting energy on a reply (again, having already demolished the argument time and time over) but as every trade unionist knows, if you can hold your nose enough and spout the same bile over and over again the resistance will eventually weaken and the audience will believe that there must be some foundation to the claims. Such is the way that strikes are formented, involving mostly people who wouldn’t really know the truth if it bit them in the ass but who have been incited to blind hate and envy as theior driving forces.
We know who uses these well recognised words of hate and envy (such as “cancerous” and “corrosive” and “rich prick”)
and it ain’t the right.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
A former Labour MP told me that left wing people saw politics in everything, other people just got on with their lives.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
O Fill You
so many periods
so few capitals
please – try harder
July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
philu, You laughin’ too?
And all this from someone who yesterday served up a grossly misleading account of NZ’s productivity record from ol’ Roger Douglas and then endorsed it!
PS Homepaddock, as a purely philosophical veiwpoint I’ve always held that politics can be found in anything and everything. And, there are some “former Labour MPs” I wouldn’t give the time of day to.
[DPF: Oh stop your desperation. It is obvious he was talking about productivity growth. Every politician is imprecise with their words occasionally and your feigned outrage is a sham]
July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
and..um..!..seeing as it is well-documented/generally accepted the national party election campaign of 2005 was one great long litany of lies/deception/bullshit..
..isn’t it a tad ‘rich’ to critique ‘hollow-men’ on ‘half-truth’ grounds..?
(it’s just that my ‘irony-alert/early warning system’..is going somewhat ballistic..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
it is interesting that although we observe and discuss these issues as if it is happening ‘outside’, the fact is, that we are all part of it. The blogosphere has enabled people who otherwise might not get involved in political debate, are empowered to do so. And they actually have an opportunity to influence our political masters.
This means of course, that on some level, we are all complicit in the very dynamic we pretend to objectively describe.
However, I’d add to this, that it is those on the extremes of both wing (and occasionally centrists who are angry) who engage in the emotive debate.
I also think that the idea that the ‘left’ are better mobilised is an urban myth that the right rather lamely subscribe to and promote. Otherwise, why is it that the National Party has more members and is better represented than Labour?
As for the ‘tabloidy’ appeal of the left message, it is matched and amplified by the right as far as I can see.
For every ‘rich-prick’ remark there is a corresponding ‘dykocracy’ jibe at the ready.
The best way to rise above it – is to satirise it, rather as a monkey might. If a monkey could do satire.
That is.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Dear DPF, please forward your blog post to every editor at Fairfax, in the faint hope that when they run inflammatory stories from Hager they will amend his byline from “journalist” to “agent provocateur”, “propagandist”, “distortionist” or some more accurate/appropriate description.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Ok then Ross. Not you – just the rest of them taht hold the Hollow Men as their very own version of Mao’s Lttle Red Book.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Well, that’s that one quote sorted. Thank God for that.
A review of Horowitz’s book, with quotes, can be found here:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/16/164836.shtml
Now that that one quote is sorted, what’s all this about the tobacco and gaming lobbies, Brash and Key’s complicity in the Exclusive Brethren campaign, the quotes about making a song and dance of meeting with Maori representatives, etc?
July 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“..and all this from someone who yesterday served up a grossly misleading account of NZ’s productivity record from ol’ Roger Douglas and then endorsed it!..”
yeah i saw that..mallard read the actual figures/stats out in parliament..
..and they confirm douglas was telling a pile of lies..
..so..on douglas’ first public outing..he is ‘outed’..
yagottalaff..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Lee C – one could say (and fairly rightly) that every union menmber is a Labour supporter as they donate to Labour and therefore have more members than National.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Thanks David, a timely post. I watched the documentary ‘Michael Moore Hates America’ last night, which was essentially a how-to guide on how to make dishonest propoganda films. Given what you’ve just highlighted here it’s clear that Hager and Moore are peas from the same pod. The sad thing is that the ‘ends-justify-the-means’ brigade will think that’s an endorsement of both men. Sigh.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
You bring the subject of harger up again why?
The real party polls starting to show a rapid decline and you need a distraction?
Next post down about the “Rich Prick” is going to cause serious dristrust among right wing voter.
If Hager is such a non event, why bring him up?
July 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Brownie – I agree, this would raise ian interestng issue about how much unions should be allowed to donate to parties during elections like in Canadian Electoral Law.
Are they secret members of Labour? They still get to vote in secret at the polling booth.
Just as you might claim every shopkeeper is a National voter, it ain’t so though.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Pssst! DPF, isn’t it about time you moved on from this subject? I have – long ago now.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I think DPF forgot to speculate as to why Brash resigned…I doubt it had anything to do with any Peter Keenan quotes.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
John Dalley said “Next post down about the “Rich Prick” is going to cause serious dristrust among right wing voter.”
A touch of the green-eyed monster there JD? I’m sure that right-wing voters generally will be delighted for John Key, who has earned his place on the “rich list” without handouts from the state. After all, the ethos of free enterprise, and getting ahead in life is what the National Party stands for, and John Key is living proof. I think you might find it’s the left that will feel threatened by Key.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Thanks David for this interesting post.
One only has to look at the abusive nature of “The Standard” and it’s team of Labour funded bloggers and commentors to see confirmation of your thesis.
I’m dreading the coming election. If Labour and the left manage to cobble together a coalition I know that NZ will no longer be a country I will want to live in. It certainly won’t be a country I want my son growing up in.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I mentioned Hager, because of the film. The secret filming of Peter Keenan especially motivated me to blog on it.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Didn’t say it was “secret” Lee. Just that they donate money to their party of choice through their membership and actively engage in politics on their behalf.
Haven’t seen the disclosure statment from the National Shopkeepers Association yet though so you might be onto something. I’ll keep close watch.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I hear ya Bryan Spondre. If Labour wins might be time to move to aussie.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Excellent post David.
Your criticism of Nicky Hagar’s use of sliced-and-diced quotes, partial quotes, quotes out of context etc reminded me of an article written by Hagar for the SST (02 Dec 2007) which I went back and found.
It was a “special report” regarding the police raids on the Urewera “terrorists”, and young Nicky was doing his usual breathless expose evaluation of the intelligence trail which led to the police action.
In the SST article he bleats: “..the affidavit..is not intended to be a balanced document. The police might collect hundreds of hours of intercepted conversations and include only snippets that support their allegations. No doubts are expressed and evidence that contradicts the suspected offences is generally not included…it can give a highly distorted picture of a case.”
He continues: “…a large part of the affidavit’s force comes from the omission of information that didn’t fit..” and finally “…by emphasising highly selective quotes…the police built an impression of al Queda-style terrorist training camps…”
Young Nick seems very aware of the power of lying-by-omission, mis-quoting and selective use of mis-information – and I’m sure he is extremely proficient at “mis-speaking” too.
While he drones on about how corrupt the NZ police were, accusing them of all the devious and dishonest techniques that he practises so well in his Brash book, he is oblivious to the irony of his whining article – and his hypocrisy is revealed for all to see. Hagar and his easily-led followers will only accept information that suits their class-war mentality as “facts” – everything that doesn’t fit is just part of the vast evil Right Wing Conspiracy.
This week, while the biggest NZ political scandal in years unfolds, Hagar was seen lurking in a car in the suburbs of Wellington, with a telephoto lens camera, stalking… the Exclusive Brethren! Nicky Hagar is one sick puppy. Anybody who accepts his weak self-serving analysis or word on any topic is wilfully taking the word of a liar and blocking out reality from their own world-view. The supporters of Hagar’s Hollow Men book, play, movie, mini-series, cartoon series etc are either ignorant, or as dishonest as he is.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Excellent post David. It show that sneaky little creep Hager up for exactly what he is. How did you get hold of the stolen emails and do you have permission to publish them all? If you do I think you should because I’d love it if everyone could read them and see all the other filth the thief has made up!
July 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Anything that anyone right of centre does is evil, anything the left does is for the benefit of mankind. Nothing will change that perception of reality that people like Hager have. That is why there is almost ZERO left-wing noise about the corruption and hypocrisy of Winston Peters. Power is more important than principle to them.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Roark, like Brash deciding to oppose the Civil Union Bill (after supporting the first reading) because he was sent a few articles by the Economist talking about Bush’s success doing something very similar? Go Brash! (disclaimer – i’m sure Clark is spun up to her eyeballs too)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Philu,
I think it would be generally accepted by most people that Labour’s campaign was also a “litany of lies/deception/bullshit” (ie letters to state house tenants), as was that of most political parties.
Unfortunately it is something that is not unique to any one party, but common to them all.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
….as Hagar himself has lamented many a time.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Wonderful post David. For the PhilU’s of the world, I remind them of this interesting post by Michael Bassett when responding to Tim Pankurst:
“By now you must be realising that there are many mistakes in Hager’s book, and it was unwise – even unprofessional – to treat its contents as gospel, or as ammunition to ambush people who had not yet had an opportunity to check his assertions. For your interest, there is one whole page that claims to be based on emails of mine to Don Brash, that certainly didn’t come from me. Several emails, whoever wrote them, are products either of Nicky Hager’s carelessness, or someone’s fevered imagination. I have kept my email correspondence with politicians, so I know what I am talking about.”
And yet the media, which gleefully pounced on this book doesn’t seem to have done ANY research to check its varacity. I think Hager has also made a fool of himself with some of his latest antics.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Thank you for some valuable information Mr. Farrar. Information that we’d probably never read in the mainstream media, who are apparently almost completely in Hagar’s thrall. Its disgusting to see the degree of deceit involved, but of course when its the left, such duplicity is never surprising. Propaganda and lies and character assassination are all they ever have.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
no it wasn’t theo..
that is the one lesson labour seems to have learned..
.that us mug-punters really don’t react too well to being told a bunch of lies/secret agendas..
..and since learning that lesson labour have been up-front in their election campaigns..
..maintaining a policy of ‘no surprises’..
..national have yet to have learnt that lesson..
..and the consequences of/from that should become more apparant..
..as voting days approaches..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ryan Sproull:
“Brash and Key’s complicity in the Exclusive Brethren campaign,……”
Ryan, my friend, THAT is just one of many good examples of a lie that has been repeated so often that ignorant people end up believing it. I read “The Hollow Men” from cover to cover as soon as it came out, and it fails to prove any such thing, in spite of the obviously massive surveillance and privacy-breaching political espionage job that had occurred.
Ian Wishart’s editorial on the subject at just AFTER the election, was the ONLY honest media assessment of this issue. Don Brash did not lie, because he had not colluded, and genuinely did not make the connection between the leaflet campaign and the handful of Christian businessmen that he had met with informally a couple of times.
Unlikely? Unbelievable? Thus a man is tried and found guilty without evidence, without witnesses, without due process, in the Marxist Kangaroo courts of the “mainstream” media.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“philu, You laughin’ too?”
Your ally is he Jafaboy? Just goes to show don’t it.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
phil – you must have been smoking a very potent batch this morning if you REALLY believe that Labour is above secret agendae, lies, deception and smears!
July 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“..Unlikely? Unbelievable?..”
..indeed..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“Ryan, my friend, THAT is just one of many good examples of a lie that has been repeated so often that ignorant people end up believing it.”
You’re most always right Phil, but more right than ever in that assertion, except when it comes to Mr. Sproull, “ignorant” may be a tad restrained.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“..You’re most always right Phil.”
why..!..thank you ratty..!
i..i’m touched..!
phil(whoar.co.z)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
One of the tragedies of the whole Brash affair, DPF, is that the likes of YOU did not stand up to the campaign of lies. A non-unified National Party was partly to blame for the socialists being able to run their steamroller right over the Don. And it is ABOUT TIME YOU or any of the Nats actually bothered to read Horowitz. WELL DONE.
DPF, if there is a lesson I advise you to learn, it is that you and the Nats strategists are conceding far too much in terms of the definition of the debate, to the socialists, because via their control over much of the media, they succeed in making THEIR smears stick all the time. There is hardly anyone better than Horowitz that you can read on this.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:36 am
your ally is he ratty..?..just goes to show..don’t it..?..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“..One of the tragedies of the whole Brash affair, DPF, is that the likes of YOU did not stand up to the campaign of lies..
..A non-unified National Party was partly to blame for the socialists being able to run their steamroller right over the Don”
who knew..?
dpf brought down brash..(!)
be it on your conscience..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:42 am
But if YOU and the Nas, DPF, accept the LEFT’s definition of Horowitz, you will never get the benefit of the truths he says. If you accept the LEFT’s definition of the Exclusive Brethren, if you accept their definition of George W. Bush, if you accept their definition of the oil companies, their definition of “Sensible Sentencing” and the Maxim Instutute and Ian Wishart and Federated Farmers, etc, etc……….Are you starting to get my point? The Left conducts TOTAL warfare. But YOU GUYS are so busy trying to duck and writhe and ingratiate yourselves and look like “decent” people ACCORDING TO THE TERMS of the media who are YOUR POLITICAL ENEMIES MAIN AIDERS AND ABETTERS………
And NZ just continues to be driven deeper and deeper into the ground by destructive policies that have become increasingly “untouchable” thanks to the way the issues have been framed by the Left.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:42 am
3-coil, I want to hug you. Alas I can only give you a thumbs up.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Wycroft (137) +5 Says:
July 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
‘Thanks David, a timely post. I watched the documentary ‘Michael Moore Hates America’ last night, which was essentially a how-to guide on how to make dishonest propoganda films. Given what you’ve just highlighted here it’s clear that Hager and Moore are peas from the same pod. The sad thing is that the ‘ends-justify-the-means’ brigade will think that’s an endorsement of both men. Sigh.”
Even sadder, Mr Wycroft, is that an awful lot of people, perhaps even an outright majority, though they are not of the “end justifies the means” brigade, are just so blooming apathetic and ignorant that they have swallowed whatever has been dished up to them in the “mainstream” media, which unfortunately happens to be primarily the work of that brigade……..look at all the free editorial Hager has been given and look at all the lies of Michael Moore and his ilk, that achieve the currency of gospel truth with the ignorant masses. “Brash lied”. “Bush Lied”. etc, etc…….
And THIS GUY is spot on:
Bogusnews (185) +3 Says:
July 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Wonderful post David. For the PhilU’s of the world, I remind them of this interesting post by Michael Bassett when responding to Tim Pankurst:
“By now you must be realising that there are many mistakes in Hager’s book, and it was unwise – even unprofessional – to treat its contents as gospel, or as ammunition to ambush people who had not yet had an opportunity to check his assertions. For your interest, there is one whole page that claims to be based on emails of mine to Don Brash, that certainly didn’t come from me. Several emails, whoever wrote them, are products either of Nicky Hager’s carelessness, or someone’s fevered imagination. I have kept my email correspondence with politicians, so I know what I am talking about.”
And yet the media, which gleefully pounced on this book doesn’t seem to have done ANY research to check its varacity. I think Hager has also made a fool of himself with some of his latest antics.”
Again, I am saddened by the reality that only a small minority of people who bother to follow things like blogs will understand that Hager has made SUCH a fool of himself. Tim “Emmeline” Pankhurst and his ilk would have made good natural allies of Joseph Goebbels. For him or any of the other editors to back down on their Hager-is-God worldview now, would be to share in Hager’s “looking foolish”, wouldn’t it?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“Tim “Emmeline” Pankhurst and his ilk would have made good natural allies of Joseph Goebbels.”
I prefer Joe Stalin, or though both apply. One the master of propaganda, the other the master of the false allegation and the smear and the character assassination and the kangaroo court. You’re right again in your criticism of the head in sand ineffective ideologically incoherent Nats. Its as if they only utilize the same narrow information sources as the left, and nothing else. Useless.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Why isn’t Hager speaking out on the Peter’s scandals?
The silence is deafening
July 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“..the master of the false allegation and the smear and the character assassination and the kangaroo court..”
it’s kinda ‘funny’ when ratty says something/accuses like that..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
emmess, why should Hager speak out? He isn’t in the same government as Peters, nor is he even an MP. He doesn’t have any more insight than you or I, presumably. What would be the point?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
All I can say, is THANK GOD FOR THE BLOGS!
It is no wonder HC hates these blogs so much. The media were wrapped around her little finger and it is has only been fairly recently that the public have had a chance to have their say and see the corruption of the HC government exposed.
If not for the blogs we would never have known about Doongate. Hagers hypocritical book and the media’s fundamental incompetence in reporting on it would also never be exposed. (In fairness of course there were exceptions such as the excellent posts by Fran O at the Herald.)
But sadly, it’s all too late. The man that would have turned the country around was crucified and there is no way he would ever be silly enough to re enter the political sphere.
The one bright spot though are the kiwiblogs, whaleoil, no minister and others that in no small part have contributed to the move to keep the b$%#*ds honest.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Hagar’s such an amateur. Everyone knows it’s only okay to misquote someone if you use an ellipsis.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Nicky speaks out about racing donations…and accuses National.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00306.htm
July 25th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Hager has spoken out. He has not criticised NZ First in any way. He has instead alleged (without the proof the media have produced re NZ First) that the racing industry is funding National.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
David, your post demonstrates how important the blogshere has become. Mainstream media is far too uncritical and easily led as they are too lazy to do any real research.
When you occupy the high moral ground on the left any means to an end to counter the corruption of the right is justified. Misinformation, misquotation, distortion of the facts, downright lies. All necessary evils to ensure victory to the cause. Greenpeace has made an artform out of this principle.
Well done David for such a critique. If only the main stream would publish such material, those other than blog readers might be better informed.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
dpf..there is that small matter of policy last electtion that mirrored what peters did..
did the racing industry give national any money..?..last election..?
or would that have been funnelled through waitemata trust..and the other slush funds..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
There is certainly evidence that the high-end racing industry campaigned very strongly for National during the 2005 election campaign. I guess unless someone connected with National spills the beans, we’ll never know to what extent National were similarly funded by the high-end racing industry. Even then, we get into the argument of whether the policy follows the money or the money follows the policy.
I also find it interesting that National’s attacks on Peters and NZ First in Parliament this week have focussed largely on the Owen Glenn donation, while they have left it largely to Russel Norman and Sue Bradford to home in on the Vela donations to NZ First.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
On the net it seems to be attributed to French author Jean Giraudoux, or latterly George Burns, but also Groucho.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
For anyone interested here is a review of the Horowitz book “How to Beat the Democrats”, and here is, um, Hone Harawira quoting it.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“Hager has spoken out. He has not criticised NZ First in any way. He has instead alleged (without the proof the media have produced re NZ First) that the racing industry is funding National.”
This simply shows the realm in which Hager operates: conspiracy. With the facts in the Peter’s case plain to see for anyone, there really isnt much room for the fantastical leaps of logic that Hager is best known for.
The Peter’s bribery scandal has so much substance there just isnt enough for Hager himself to invent.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
If only Phil, if only.
Unfortunately a large number of Labour supporters now feel they have been deceived and misled, by the party who represented their grandparents and pretended to represent them. Political parties are driven by a desire to govern, not to represent. One of the reasons initially leading to parties being commonplace in Politics.
The very nature of Democracy is such that they must do and say what the populace wants to hear to win, whether they believe it, or plan on following through. To deny that Labour engages in this type of electioneering is deliberate blindness, sure they may not be coming in with the hidden economic reforms they historically have, but they still mislead and feed “bullshit” to the electorate.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Some excellent comments in this thread!
Hager is nothing more than a political terrorist trying to influence democracy.
If I had to pick just one ‘hot button’ issue for why I’m not voting Labour – mine would be Hallow Men affair – including the 2005 election rort.
I’m incensed by the fact the emails were stolen in the first place, but to have:
- Helen & Winston gloating about them in the house
- Hager to write a book using the stolen emails
- A tax payer funded play
- A tax payer funded film
- A police investigation that takes 1.5 years & turns up nothing!
Enough is enough. Labour are determined to rub Brash & National’s nose in it…. and I think it’s discussing. Especially when you consider the real corruption of:
- Labour 2005 overspend
- Labour stealing from the tax payer
- Winston Peter’s stealing from the tax payer
- Winston Peter’s not declaring donations
- Winston Peter’s policy for cash
What’s your hot button issue?
July 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“- A police investigation that takes 1.5 years & turns up nothing!”
‘But they’re soooooooo stolen, I just can’t prove it’? Why did Brash resign again? And why shouldn’t the play and film be taxpayer funded?
July 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
issue: an tax increases through bracket creep
July 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
*an issue
July 25th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I find Hager’s views to be shallow, conspiratorial, and breathy. Thats the neutral part,,,the bad part is this sniveller got taxpayer’s money to fund his gush. The good part is he is irrelevant.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:44 am
This might stretch your mind a bit Stephen, but here’s a way to find out – ask the author of the emails. The conversation might go something like this:
Stephen – “Did you give your emails to Nicky Hager?”
Dr Brash – “No, of course not. They were taken without my consent”.
Stephen – “So they were stolen”.
Dr Brash – “Yes”.
Just as if I went into your Windows Mail / Gmail & printed off your emails, & distributed them – that’s steeling (funny how you have to explain what is right and wrong to our good friends on the left).
1. 2005 election loss being the main one
2. Age
3. Book comes dead last – but it may have influenced the timing.
Because it’s of an overt political natural. Because it’s based on illegally obtained information. It sets a bad precedent. They propagate lies and half truths. Because of the police investigation. Because Dr Brash is no longer in public life.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:33 am
“..What’s your hot button issue?..”
oh..!..privatisation of social services..and more..
..a party..that just three years ago lied through their teeth about what their policies actually/really were..
..a party with more secret agendas than you could poke a stick at..
..and these same people are back again..going..
..”we aren’t lying this time..honest..!..”
‘y’know..!!..
..we all don’t mind admitting we’re a little silly..at times..
..but nobody likes to admit to being stupid/a mug-punter/sucked in/’played’..
.and that is what national tried to do to us in 2005..
and no..this political leopard hasn’t changed its’ spots..
..national have that long history of blatant lying/secret agendas during election campaigns..
..all that that encompasses..
would be my ‘hot button issue..
..i just don’t believe you..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Well said, NX, that little chronology is the kind of thing one expects to read about Putin’s Russia, isn’t it? What a disgrace this country has become.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
NX, i think those who receive emails have ownership of them too though don’t they? That is quite critical here, one would imagine. Zero evidence of hacking so far…The police investigated a ‘theft’ because it was alleged, not because there was any proof. Possible that printed emails were stolen I suppose.
I think it’s a total joke that you make me a ‘leftie’ just for raising some questions about Brash too…or maybe i did something else?
He DID say that he would resign if he lost the election, you’re right.
He resigned, then immediately released the injunction on the book. The ‘smoking gun email’ and showing how he was spun up to his eyeballs would have damaged him so badly that there is no way he could have survived politically with that book out.
I can accept that he had enough of all the crap that goes on in politics (having to sell out on his principles and friends) and that combined with all of the above surely did it. Somewhat sympathetic to him http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4565928a6619.html, but it was his responsibility in the end. Brash did say the book was “was at least an honest attack”, but not sure if that means ‘it was right’ or ‘it made no bones about going for him’.
I do find the ‘poltical nature’ of the Hollow Men an extremely weak argument to use – you’d want to get someone to make sure a play is politically correct before it gets any funding? No thanks! Can’t prove any illegality. Precedent? Lies and half truths – Hager does get a bit excited about all this sort of thing, but the events and happenings are not really up for debate – they happened! Police investigation – I would agree, actually . Wonder how that happened or what justification was used…
No longer in public life – WEAK! You’re really clutching at straws with that – ever heard of the concept of ‘history’?
I suspect all this is old hat, but what the hell.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Philu and others. I really can’t understand what your evidence is for arguing that National had secret hidden agendas, were lying about what their policies were, etc. If your evidence is that there were some things that many of them thought desirable, but couldnt do because the public dont accept them currently, then yes of course. That applies to all parties, but isn’t evidence for an agenda that would be implemented pre-election.
It seems to me the defining feature of the 2005 election is that – if we put aside all the laughable crap that Labour threw about the place: eg policies written in the US, under the control variously of Washington, Brethren, aussi consultants; privatising everything, slashing health and education spending and so forth, all stuff that only a child would take seriously – there was a clearer policy difference in actual policies than we have seen for many years.
National’s was to implement announced tax cuts (vastly better thought out than what Labour did with WFF, which delivered a 53-59% marginal tax rate for middle nz households), reform welfare, increase competition in education, with catch-up vouchers for kids that get left behind, remove Treaty settlements in legislation where it has no place, speed up Treaty settlements, etc, eliminate parole for violent criminals. All good stuff. Secret agendas? Not on nuke ships – that was to be subject to a referendum if the issue arose. Privatisation: no, they mentioned a couple of minor things, and the emails indicated that the issue could be left to a second term of govt, where of course it would have been scrutinised. Surely all that is going on there is an awareness that you have to win the argument with the public if you want to change something. That is the virtue of a democracy.
Labour won by a very effective political bribe for students and ex-students (a $1.3 billion wealth transfer to a group that will be among the higher income earners in this society), by slinging mud everywhere, as per the Horowitz analysis, by stealing from the taxpayer to fund the pledgecard advertising, and because Brash was bloody hopeless through the campaign.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Hey Philip, can you remember what Brash’s policy on student loans/allowances was? I’d really like to know, cos no one I know can answer that question (unsurprisingly – why would you bother to learn if Labour is offering the deal of the century?).
I also wonder if Brash had put out more policies than Key had at a comparable time in 2005? Labour won thanks to NZF and UF too, don’t forget.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
phillip said..
“..Philu and others. I really can’t understand what your evidence is for arguing that National had secret hidden agendas, were lying about what their policies were, etc. If your evidence is that there were some things that many of them thought desirable, but couldnt do because the public dont accept them currently, then yes of course. That applies to all parties, but isn’t evidence for an agenda that would be implemented pre-election..”
um..!..can i suggest a perusal of one of the incarnations of ‘the hollow men’..
and lets’ not/never forget the warmongering/war-fever from national..?
..with perhaps simon ‘all the way with bush’ power being the purest manifestation of that choleric zeal..but key/brash were ‘also there’….
and..”..because Brash was bloody hopeless through the campaign..”
..for that we are eternally grateful..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
No change to allowances (same as Labour in 2005); keep loans interest free while studying, allow tax deductibility of loan interest (credited to the loan balance).
July 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Stephen, yes i can remember that student loan policy, and it was very good. It treated the student loan expense as an investment item (which is what it is – it is building human capital after all), and thus allowed the interest on that loan to be tax deductible. In combination with a well-thought out tax package, most students, except for those with extremely large debts, would have been better off with the National package. The online tax calculator showed that. But as so often, good but complex policy is trumphed by bad but simple, easily communicated policy. The Nats policy gave everybody involved proper incentives, whereas the Labour interest free deal was just a recipe for a huge increase in debt levels, which we have seen already. That economically rational policy flowed through into the Nats WFF and tax cut combination, which gave much the same or larger amounts of cash in hand to most families (except for those with very large numbers of kids), but with much lower marginal household tax rates: ie 19+20=39% for most of middle NZ, instead of Labour’s 33+20=53%. But Labour could count on that not being easily communicated (in fact the Nats were hopeless in communicating this), so again the policy that locked NZ households into a tax trap won the day.
As for poor Philu, I havent been following these debates for long, but is it the case that you always miss the point, or is this a one-off. There is nothing in the Hollow Men book to suggest a hidden agenda, just the usual internal debate that political parties must have about what combination of your preferred policies will be acceptable to the electorate. eg on privatisation, if the public prefer to keep owning established businesses while putting up with crappy public infrastructure elsewhere, then so be it. But it is perfectly acceptable for a Party that believes it would be better to sell some of those businesses so that public infrastructure can be built up elsewhere, to take the view that that is an argument they would have a better chance of winning from in govt, and then take it to the electorate at the subsequent election. Nothing wrong with that at all.
As for war-mongering and Simon Power’s slip-up – obviously one of those unfortunate bits of drafting that werent picked up as these things go through the various drafts (i mean come on, nobody is that stupid) – surely you can do better than that feeble bit of Horowitzing.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Thanks Graeme and Philip. I remember now.
“deductibility of loan interest (credited to the loan balance)” and/or “thus allowed the interest on that loan to be tax deductible.” – I don’t think I even bothered to find out what that was at the time. I still don’t know NOW. I hear these expressions for businesses all the time, but that policy gives no number, percentages, figures or anything, just ‘tax dedcutible’!? Total mystery compared with ‘no interest unless you leave the country’! This is turning into an ‘educate steve’ thread but would appreciate this last thing anyway.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“..(i mean come on, nobody is that stupid)..”
um..!..shouldn’t you be asking simon ‘all the way with bush!’ power about that..?
phil(whoar.co,nz)
July 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I spose what I mean above is – hardly any students knew what the hell Brash meant, everyone knew what Clark meant.