Hooton was right

September 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

on Eye to Eye referred to NZ First voters as:

mad elderly Pakeha racists

Now Matthew has been known to hit the hyperbole occassionally, but in this case he is backed up by no less a source than the Sunday Star-Times. They report that NZ First voters are far far more likely to beleive in :

  • The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks (52 percent)
  • A secret elite cabal controls world affairs (38 percent)
  • Princess Diana was assassinated (38 percent)
  • World governments are hiding evidence of alien visits (35 percent)

Speaks for itself!

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Hooton was right”

  1. glubbster (344 comments) says:

    “The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks” is an ambiguous statement: ie was it US malevolence (stupidity to believe that) or simply that, from US intelligence, they knew of the increased risk of an attack like 9/11 but the Bush et al chose to ignore it instead of put in place defensive measures and high security alert.

    In my view there is a strong case of incompetence leading to the attacks. Just like the disaster recovery planning in Louisiana and Florida 1-2 years ago.

    Ironically, the attacks enabled Bush to be re-elected on a “we have and will continue to defend the US from evil” military platform.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    What a freak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    You forgot: “New Zealand is constantly manipulated by big business (70 percent believed this)”

    Ha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gazzaj (99 comments) says:

    Might be worth pointing out those results came from 60 NZ First-voting SST-readers. I don’t know how reliable that makes them but it sounds like a pretty small sample.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    “The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks (52 percent)”

    Chances are, they did.

    “World governments are hiding evidence of alien visits (35 percent)” Is a stupid thing to say. “World governments may be hiding evidence of alien visits (35 percent)” is a sensible thing to say.

    “Princess Diana was assassinated (38 percent)” – She was…. by her drunken limousine driver.

    “A secret elite cabal controls world affairs (38 percent)” – There’s no reason to suspect this, but also no reason to suspect the reverse.

    All in all, I think the “mad elderly pakeha racists” might be on to something….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    NZ First?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. calendar girl (1,241 comments) says:

    “Might be worth pointing out those results came from 60 NZ First-voting SST-readers. I don’t know how reliable that makes them but it sounds like a pretty small sample.”

    This week, it’s probably the entire party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Add to my last: “show”.

    Then nutters are out today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bryan Spondre (225 comments) says:

    No doubt they also believe in the efficacy of homeopathy, iridology, tarot card reading and seances. Sounds like the City Vision beneficiaries Aaron Bhatnagaar was writing about over the weekend :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Christopher – what? You vote NZ First?

    1. US Govt knew about or planned 9/11. Definitely didn’t plan, they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery, and surely couldn’t keep it secret. Knew about – not in the normal sense of the word ‘knew’. Perhaps in the sense that somewhere in the reams of data that they collect, there was a wiretap or something that hinted at it. But not in the sense that someone worked out what was going on and then did nothing.

    2. You’re changing the question and then agreeing with it?

    3. An accident is not an assassination. You’re redefining the question.

    4. No reason to suspect the reverse. Right. Have you heard about the celestial teapot? (you can find it on Wikipedia)

    I’m hoping you were joking, but I suspect you weren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gazzaj (99 comments) says:

    “The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks (52 percent)”

    Chances are, they did.

    “A secret elite cabal controls world affairs (38 percent)” – There’s no reason to suspect this, but also no reason to suspect the reverse.

    Haha… you’re kidding, right? Why stop there? There’s an equally likely chance that the US government planned the bombing of Pearl Harbour. And there’s no reason to suspect that a secret elite cabal of aliens doesn’t control world affairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “And there’s no reason to suspect that a secret elite cabal of aliens doesn’t control world affairs.”

    Are you nuts- everyone knows that the real controllers are Halliburton, George Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Compelling evidence to apply two tests to potential voters:

    a) a sanity test
    b) an intelligence test

    Of course Christopher et al would argue that even the stupid deserve representation but I would counterpropose that the stupid do not need stupid representation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    “Christopher – what? You vote NZ First?”

    No, I vote Act.

    “Definitely didn’t plan, they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery”

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. America doesn’t have the best reputation when it comes to organizing and executing military or quasi-military manoevres, but they are easily capable of something like the hatchet-job that 9/11 turned out to be. Categorically stating that they “couldn’t have” done it, especially in the face of such conflicting evidence, is akin to saying that global warming “must be” anthropogenic.

    “An accident is not an assassination. You’re redefining the question.”

    My original post was unclear. Killing someone by drink driving is murder, IMHO. It was clearer when I said it in my head.

    “Have you heard about the celestial teapot?”

    I’ve always referred to it as “Russell’s teapot”, but yes, I am familiar with the proposition that it is not up to the skeptic to disprove unverifiable claims.

    However, my statement is still completely correct – there is no evidence to suggest that a secret, elite cabal does not control world affairs.

    Perhaps I was unclear in my post. I do not believe that Diana was assassinated, nor that Governments are actually hiding evidence of aliens, nor that there is a secret, elite cabal which controls world affairs. I am a mathematician and a scientist. I simply get irate at surveys which may it difficult to give a proper answer to the question. I took part in the survey, and none of the available options were good answers to the question posed.

    Furthermore, I also become exceptionally angry at anyone who blindly accepts the word of any government, especially regarding incidents such as 9/11 where the official version of events doesn’t stack up from any point of view.

    Do I believe in God? No. Do I accept his existence as a possibility. Yes. People who categorically state that God does not exist simply because there is no evidence of his existence display the same ignorance as those who blindly claim that he does exist.

    Do you see my point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    “Haha… you’re kidding, right? Why stop there? There’s an equally likely chance that the US government planned the bombing of Pearl Harbour. And there’s no reason to suspect that a secret elite cabal of aliens doesn’t control world affairs.”

    No, I am not kidding, and no, there isn’t an equally likely chance that the US government planned the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

    I understand that on the internet, some degree of hyperbole is usual, so I suspect that you are, in fact, aware of the solid mountain of evidence that, at the very least, the official version of 9/11 events is total bollocks?

    Just as an interesting point, I’m on MSN with classmates of mine right now, both of whom are studying towards PhDs in Physics, and both agree with me that the science is against the official 9/11 story.

    “Of course Christopher et al would argue that even the stupid deserve representation but I would counterpropose that the stupid do not need stupid representation.”

    I’m not sure why you’d attempt to lump me in with “stupid people” (maybe that wasn’t your intention, but it seemed that way to me). I’m not stupid. Generally, I’m thought of as being excessively the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    That I can agree with Christopher, at least mostly.

    However, I don’t see what is inconsistent in the official version of 9/11. I see a lot of random allegations, but none of the ones that I have seen stack up to even superficial analysis. In the absence of any real evidence, any real inconsistencies, and any reason why the US govt would want to do it, I’ll revise my estimate to the more factually accurate “exceptionally unlikely, so unlikely that it is a waste of anybody’s time to even consider it.” Or, to put it another way, the chance of the US govt having organised it, rounded to 3 decimal places, is zero. However, if you round to 20 decimal places, it may be non-zero.

    As for the cabal – there is actually evidence that a secret cabal does not control world affairs. Evidence in the form of probabilities – for such a thing to be happening a number of other assumptions must be true – like that nobody knows about it, or, that everybody is keeping it secret. I think there are ways to calculate the probability of the necessary large group of people all keeping it a secret, and conclude that it is very unlikely to be true. Again, rounds of to probability of zero.

    Sure, they could have an answer to the question that said “I’m a mathematician, so when I say that it isn’t true, I really mean that the probability it isn’t true is greater than 99.99%”, which presumably would have made you happy? For the rest of us, we’ll take 99.99% unlikely as meaning it didn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Your original comment, Christopher, if you go back and read it, provided no context. It seemed that you were defending the stupid people’s views, and therefore might be stupid yourself. Your subsequent comments make your line of argument clearer.

    As for the physics not stacking up – the physics of what? Are we back on the whole “why did the buildings fall down, they shouldn’t have” story? Or is this some of the more outlandish stories about the hole in the side of the Pentagon not being big enough? On the “why did they fall down” my view is that they fell down because someone flew a plane laden with fuel into the side of them. I don’t subscribe to the ‘someone must have sabotaged them’ school of thought. Perhaps the buildings were corruptly not built as strongly as they were supposed to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    “As for the cabal – there is actually evidence that a secret cabal does not control world affairs. Evidence in the form of probabilities – for such a thing to be happening a number of other assumptions must be true – like that nobody knows about it, or, that everybody is keeping it secret. I think there are ways to calculate the probability of the necessary large group of people all keeping it a secret, and conclude that it is very unlikely to be true. Again, rounds of to probability of zero.”

    That’s fair enough. Personally, I put the probability of such a scenario somewhat higher, though still small (<1%).

    As I said, I personally don’t believe it, but I accept it as a possibility.

    “In the absence of any real evidence, any real inconsistencies, and any reason why the US govt would want to do it….”

    I won’t disparage your assessment unnecessarily, however I would humbly suggest that you take a closer look for some “real evidence”. You may have researched more widely, and if so I apologize for the following generalization, but when most people say they’ve reviewed the evidence on 9/11, what they really mean is that they’ve watched Loose Change and decided it’s a load of old cobblers. If this is the extent of the research you have done, then allow me to assure you that there is, in fact, a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence which directly contradicts the official version of events.

    “…any reason why the US govt would want to do it…”

    I can think of any number of reasons, many of which revolve around Oil, and many others which revolve around presidential popularity. As a clearly well-read man, surely these motives cannot have escaped your notice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    Sorry, just saw your next post.

    “I don’t subscribe to the ’someone must have sabotaged them’ school of thought. Perhaps the buildings were corruptly not built as strongly as they were supposed to be?”

    An entirely possible explanation. I also am nowhere near convinced that sabotage is the only alternative explanation. What I am convinced of is the inadequacy of the official explanation. Just as an obvious starting point, the collapse trajectory of the South Tower was completely inconsistent with structural weakening. If I can find it, I’ll post the link to the Mathematica notebook file I built to simulate the collapse (this was a long time ago, so I may not be able to find it), so that you can run the sim yourself.

    I was obviously unclear in my first comment, but my original point was meant to be that the survey answers available didn’t give any room for positions beyond belief and disbelief. Properly phrased, I can actually answer questions like the ones in the SST with one sentence: “I don’t believe in anything.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Then, according to what was observed from the results (that the more you earn and the higher educated you are, the less chance there is that you believe in anything) you’re probably a millionaire astronaut with a PhD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    “you’re probably a millionaire astronaut with a PhD”

    Not yet. Getting there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    david My grandfather advocated every potential voter should be subject to an IQ test and a Political Knowledge test

    the 1st to prove they had the capacity to vote The 2nd to prove they had the capability to vote.

    As grandaddy said You cant have the dumb and the ignorant deciding who governs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    They report that NZ First voters are far far more likely to beleive in conspiracy theories

    Well, as the article itself pointed out, this depends on which conspiracy theories you ask about. The Greens are at least as nutty as NZF but their choice of conspiracy theory differs from NZF. Last year I went to an event with Sue Kedgley where I learnt that not only was aspartame the Most Toxic Substance Ever Invented(!!!) but that it was unleashed on to the world by none other than Donald Rumsfeld!!! Many of the Greens are convinced that Monsanto et al are DELIBERATELY contaminating our food and farms with GE products. A few weeks ago I went to an ERMA hearing where I heard Charles Drace (Green candidate in the 2002 election) explain that Crop & Food, and presumably Agresearch, are being FORCED to conduct research on genetic engineering by the US govt as a prerequiste to any free trade agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    What was really odd about the Greens in that survey was that 14% didn’t think climate change had its roots in the activities of humans…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    gd: can I set the test? Answers are to be in essay format:

    1. Please explain why ACT’s policies are better for the country than Labour’s

    2. Please provide 7 points of difference between National and Labour (note: you cannot include people or party name as points of difference)

    3. Please compare and contrast the involvement of unions and the Exclusive Brethren in the 2005 election.

    4. Describe the key rights that should exist in a free society, and articulate which party’s policies best protect these rights. Also, explain why these rights underpin our economic and social lives

    There was a study once that found that getting people to debate a position would cause them to change their minds about it – that is to say, if you can get someone to say something, even to argue passionately for it, it will cause them to start to believe it (irrespective of their prior beliefs).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Heh, your test sounds catastrophically subjective PaulL.

    Often once people have a ‘declared position’, they then start to filter through the stuff that contradicts that position to get the stuff that confirms their position – ‘confirmation bias’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote