The Defence allegations

July 29th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says there is no evidence the Defence Force had copies of journalist ’s phone metadata.

Dr Coleman said in a statement today he would be very concerned if this had occurred.

“The Defence Force has assured me that this is not something that they would regard as a legitimate practice.

“I have seen no evidence to support these claims at this point.”

He said the NZDF were carrying out record checks to see if there was any evidence it occurred.

The Sunday Star Times article by Nicky Hager made two main allegations against the NZDF – that they had copies of Stephenson’s phone metadata in Afghanistan and that investigative journalists were classified in a security order manual as posing the same level of security risk as criminals and hackers.

It will be fascinating if there is proof, as I’d expect an inquiry into who authorised it – if it happened.

“I became aware of the details of this order over the weekend. It is one of hundreds of orders that exist in NZDF manuals.

“The order was issued back in 2003 by the Chief of Defence Force at the time, Sir Bruce Ferguson, and then reissued in 2005.”

Surely not the same Sir Bruce who just came out decrying it, and saying it is a bad thing?

And who was Minister of Defence in 2003 and 2005? Mark Burton, I think.

Tags: , ,

100 Responses to “The Defence allegations”

  1. AG (1,824 comments) says:

    And who was Minister of Defence in 2003 and 2005? Mark Burton, I think.

    It was Mark Burton.

    But the likelihood that he ever saw this internal paper is very, very small. Equally, the likelihood that Coleman knew of it is approximately zero. What is needed now that the order has become public, however, is a swift smack on the Defence Force’s snout with a rolled up newspaper and a stern instruction not to do anything so silly again. And that’s Coleman’s job (unless he’d like someone else to be Minister, of course).

    [DPF: I agree neither Burton, not Goff, not Coleman know of the order. I note Goff is trying to say it is the fault of the Govt, and hence I point out whom was Minister when it was signed off.

    I agree Coleman needs to deliver a smack, and he appears to be doing so. The size of the smack will depend on if Hagar's main allegation is found to have substance]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. metcalph (1,428 comments) says:

    As soon as I saw the Nicky Hagar byline, I knew the story was largely a beat-up (that the SST buried it deep within the paper instead of being on the front page suggests to me that the agree). I have to wonder tho at the timing of the allegations – it turns the heat from the GCSB to the MoD. Was Hagar paid by the GCSB for this story?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,479 comments) says:

    Monday, 29 July 2013, 2:41 pm
    Press Release: New Zealand Defence Force

    29 July 2013

    Defence Force Says No Monitoring Took Place

    The Chief of Defence Force has never authorised any Defence Force personnel to undertake unlawful interception of private communications of the type outlined by Mr Hager in his Sunday Star Times article.

    With regard to this matter, the Acting Chief of Defence Force, Major General (MAJGEN) Tim Keating, says:

    “I have asked the officers responsible for our operations in Afghanistan whether they have conducted monitoring of Mr Stephenson as alleged by Mr Hager and they have assured me that they have not. This includes asking foreign organisations to do this on our behalf.

    “We have identified no information at this time that supports Mr Hager’s claims.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Time someone investigated whether the great email hack of the National Party that contributed heavily to Don Brash’s downfall as a politician was the result of a leak or other dirty work by a rogue GCSB employee with far leftist leanings.

    Would Hagar the Horrible be prepared to swear on a stack of Bibles or Das Kapital or whatever he holds most dear that he did not get his information from such a source?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. AG (1,824 comments) says:

    I note Goff is trying to say it is the fault of the Govt, and hence I point out whom was Minister when it was signed off.

    Fair enough. Goff’s being silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Jack5 3:21 pm

    Time someone investigated whether the great email hack of the National Party that contributed heavily to Don Brash’s downfall as a politician…

    Didn’t those emails or information come from an anti-Brash faction within the National Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Brash didn’t have any future as a politician. He was like a bumbling Mr Magoo..It was probably kinder that someone brought him down rather than have him self implode for everyone to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (8,554 comments) says:

    Journalists are frequently subversives, example Burgess and Philby. There are many more.

    Absolutely no reason for journalists to be made exempt from Security surveillance. In fact I would say they’d be due it more than most.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,839 comments) says:

    It was a war zone, ffs you’d think it would be a comfort to know the army were keeping tabs on where you are and what you’re up to…??!?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,590 comments) says:

    Fuck Goff spouting rubbish and nonsense again. What a surprise.

    The former socialist leader should be well advised to retire from politics once and for all, instead of persisting his greedy sucking off the public tit.

    Fuck Goff, another perennial trougher, knows neither decency nor shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,580 comments) says:

    So the 2003 version of Labour botched the drafting of the GCSB Act and also overlooked that NZDF had decided that journalists were to be treated as subversives. That two steaming turds they left National to clean up, but Labour have been acting as if it is National’s fault that Labour were so incompetent.

    And Ferguson is in the thick of it again. Not only was he responsible for the anti-journalist order as CDF, he was also responsible for the bad culture at GCSB and the legal confusion there. Asleep at the wheel where ever he worked? And we’re supposed to feel sorry that he didn’t get one of his cronies the top GCSB job?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. KapitiCoast (114 comments) says:

    @ Joana
    agreed, I’m a national voter but had grave misgivings of Brash, indeed his debates in lead up to 2005 election with Clark when he wouldn’t attack her , as being not gentlemanly, when to be honest he was actually attacking a man in woman’s clothing was neither here nor there….didn’t like the man and could not see him being a good PM, I voted ACT that year, 1st and only time…what were the alternatives!!…before you all berate me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lesterpk (27 comments) says:

    I dont recall the specific order but I do remember around then (2003) we were deploying into Afghanistan as well as supporting anti terrorist ops in the Gulf with a P-3. We were warned not to post pics back that could identify locations as well as being careful about who we told what, so the order likely relates to all that, basic operational security. Only my immediate family (wife/kids and Mum) knew exactly where I was and that was how it stayed. Any contact with journalists and the like was forbidden as info could get out that neither us nor the host country wanted known.

    Some years later when facebook etc became the norm new orders were issued to make sure GPS was turned off when posting pics and pics had to be vetted by seniors to ensure no unwanted info got out.

    There was a briefing on security where they took a pic someone had posted of himself in the base in Afghanistan onto a public Facebook profile, unfortunately they also had the comms room in the background. From the aerials on the roof they worked out what radios were in use, therefore thew knew the normal range from which the patrols could call for help. They tracked the person back to their home address in NZ, found the house on Google Earth, looked at it using street view and saw the vehicles outside, used Carjam to get owners details, cross checked it and confirmed this was the house of the guy, his wife and kids were there while he was away for 6 months.

    All this from a simple “look at where I am” photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. jaba (2,137 comments) says:

    correct me if I’m wrong .. Stephenson and Hager are investigative journalists .. what they seem to do is snoop around picking up every morsel of information that may interest them.
    They are spies who hate being spied on .. hypocrites .. must vote Green

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Ah, Joana (3.39 post), the champion of NZ First.

    Don Brash might have sometimes bumbled when debating. However, compare Dr Brash with the pliant, list nonentities Winston Peters surrounds himself (with the exception of Ron Marks, who evidently saw through him). Compared with them, and perhaps only when compared with them, Dr Brash was a political Einstein.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    I suppose I could be wrong, but I don’t think Nicky Hagar has a great deal of credibility with the general public.

    On journalists in general, there are some competent and reliable investigative journalists/commentators, and then there are the sort of journalists who used to work for the long gone unmourned News of the World.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    jaba 5:07 pm

    correct me if I’m wrong .. Stephenson and Hager are investigative journalists .. what they seem to do is snoop around picking up every morsel of information that may interest them.
    They are spies who hate being spied on .. hypocrites .. must vote Green

    Hager and Stephenson shine light into the dark places that controlling elements within the security apparatus do not want it shone. What they allowed the public to understand is the anti-democratic manner within which senior members of the armed forces operate. In Other People’s Wars Nicky Hager demonstrated how military chiefs ignored government directives of the day in an attempt to ingratiate themselves to the US/UK terror network:

    Other People’s Wars is about the importance of accountability. It demonstrates that the New Zealand Defence Force’s actions in foreign theatres have been presented differently to the New Zealand public and government from how they have been described internally. The main issue of the book is not whether or not military intelligence is a secretive structure, or whether New Zealand should co-operate with other military interests, but what interests that secrecy actually serves and whether it is the same as the interests of the New Zealand government and public.

    Hager’s book and Stephenson’s investigative efforts were a service to the New Zealand tax-payers and voters, whereas the activities of the NZDF were designed to mislead the public and their democratically elected representatives. There is nothing anyone can say that can justify the disgraceful manner in which New Zealand’s most senior military officials acted.

    It is not Stephenson and Hager who deserve greater scrutiny, it is those members of this country’s security apparatus who have demonstrated such utter contempt for the wishes of those who pay their wages.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. thedavincimode (6,712 comments) says:

    This is outrageous. Why weren’t they spying on him?

    I demand an enquiry. Heads should roll over this.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Akaroa 5:47 pm

    I suppose I could be wrong, but I don’t think Nicky Hagar has a great deal of credibility with the general public.

    Your supposition is spot on – you are dead wrong. Nicky Hager is recognised internationally as New Zealand’s most highly respected investigative journalist.

    I would be interested if you could offer an example of any journalist who is in the same league as Nicky Hager within New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    thedavincimode 6:09 pm

    This is outrageous. Why weren’t they spying on him?

    I demand an enquiry. Heads should roll over this.

    I have no doubt Nicky Hager is monitored more closely than any other ‘subversive element’ within New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    yoza, my dear ole 74 yr old Mum is more subversive that Hager. Hager is just a wanker.

    (sorry to out you Mum, but it had to be done! :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    Shit if She reads that I will be done for…I am pretty sure She is only 73 !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    “Nicky Hager is recognised internationally as New Zealand’s most highly respected investigative journalist.”
    You are joking right?? Hagar is a typical hypocritical two-faced lefty- He has little or no credibility with the General Public outside of Green Party supporters…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    All this thread shows is that the GSCB bill is a really, really bad idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Longknives 6:36 pm

    You are joking right?? Hagar is a typical hypocritical two-faced lefty- He has little or no credibility with the General Public outside of Green Party supporters…

    I’m guessing you can offer a contender that can compete with the global recognition Nicky Hager’s, Secret Power received.
    How many New Zealand journalists have testified before the European Parliament as a consequence of what they have produced?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I am wondering if those criticising Hager here will offer any evidence of his suppoed lack of credibility. FWIW, I have found his work to be pretty persuasive and founded on what is clearly a massive amount of basic research.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    @mikey,

    Well there is this reference to the SST Operation Leaf story that Hager co-authored that would question his credibility.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/11/russell_brown_on_nicky_hager.html

    And clearly even Russel Brown – hardly an apologist for the Right – has some questions about Hager’s approach and it’s authenticity.

    I find Nicky Hager about as credible as Ian Wishart.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Fair points made there. I’m mainly thinking of ‘Secret Power’ and ‘Other People’s Wars’, with which I’m more familiar. I don’t find much of Wishart’s stuff credible, but I class Hager as a serious investigative journalist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. swan (665 comments) says:

    @Pete George.

    We have recently learnt the weight we should give to NZDF press releases. Answer: Not much.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    That’s just sad hudson. Do you have anything else apart from a Kiwiblog post. Russel Brown’s quotes have no context, you would have done better producing a link to the actual comments themselves in the context they were delivered. That Farrar also did not link to where ever Russel Brown made the comments was highly suspicious. I’m guessing this was from The Seeds of Distrust episode where Hager earned the ire of all sorts of Helen Clark fan-boys, among them Russel Brown.

    David Farrar

    Also Nicky Hager was a co-author of the SST Operation Leaf story re the SIS, which was found to be totally wrong, and based on a con.

    Again, no link. Just because Farrar says something does not make it true.

    I’m not saying Farrar and Brown are wrong, but it would be helpful if we were allowed the opportunity to judge for ourselves the evidence on which the have founded their allegations.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,479 comments) says:

    Swan – maybe, but how does Hagar’s claim stack up? Is it backed by any thing or is it just an unsubstantiated accusation?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    I notice Russell Brown, in the comments following the post, is very critical of the manner in which Farrar quoted him.

    What’s that David? I can’t hear you over the whirring of the spin machine ;-)

    Anyway, I posted this on No Right Turn a couple of hours ago:

    “I was critical of the way Nicky Hager sprang his Corngate documents. I didn’t think the possibility of an injunction was real enough to justify the way he acted. I think Don Brash has now vindicated that action, and I’ll be saying so in the blog tomorrow.”

    I took issue with some parts of ‘Seeds of Deception’, and it may be that the same would be the case with the new book, ‘Hollow Men’. In her introduction, Marilyn Waring suggests that “There’s not too much conspiracy in some of the letters quoted from old politicians.”

    But we don’t know, because the book has been injuncted.

    And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that Nicky Hager invents anonymous sources. What I did say was the scientific claims in that book were undermined by the fact that his expert’s assessment couldn’t be measured against his (or her) credibility, because the expert wasn’t named.

    Good try, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Heh, shot down again hudson. You make a great mop, I really enjoy wiping the floor with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Yoza at 6.12:

    …Nicky Hager is recognised internationally as New Zealand’s most highly respected investigative journalist…

    Recognised by whom internationally? By the ravers of the far left? Who else recognises him as highly as you do, Yoza?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Time someone investigated whether the great email hack of the National Party that contributed heavily to Don Brash’s downfall as a politician was the result of a leak or other dirty work by a rogue GCSB employee with far leftist leanings.

    No. That was the work of a moderate faction within the National Party. Not all conservatives identify with the radical social and economic liberalism of ACT and the Brash appointment was a pretty brazen attempt by ACT supporters to infiltrate and subvert the National Party for their own ends, and to misrepresent the party to the public to get Brash elected PM.

    If I didn’t know better, I would suspect DPF was involved in the leak. The leakers certainly represented the silent majority of National supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson posted at 7.49 of the email hack of the National Party:

    ..That was the work of a moderate faction within the National Party…

    So say those trying to cover the tracks of an outside hack.

    Where’s your evidence, Jackson? Names – give us names.

    It was an outside hack, possibly by a GCSB rogue staffer with leftist mates. What a classic ploy by saboteurs: blame the victims to cover your tracks and try to undermine the victims’ morale.

    And what silent majority? How did you establish that? Lip reading? Mind reading? What crap!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Marilyn Waring more or less gives it up in the intro to Hager’s book.

    Of course it might have been Brash’s wife, since he’d been fucking around on her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    If it was a hacker, then why hasn’t anyone been charged? It’s obviously someone who had legit access.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    That’s right Jackson, smear Brash over his private life.

    Like Duck Man Mallard did. But that came back on him, didn’t it?

    Smear Mrs Brash, too, Jackson. Even most leftists wouldn’t stoop to dish dirt like that.

    We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, the Left is the side of real nastiness: Trotsky and Lenin gassing peasants who only wanted to retain ownership of their small plots; Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Mad Mao, even Germany’s National Socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    and that investigative journalists were classified in a security order manual as posing the same level of security risk as criminals and hackers

    Oh dear. In the source article the original claim was in reference to certain journalists, later in the article Hager switches to journalists without any qualification. So defence were only concerned about certain journalists, rather than all of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    You’ll have to learn to do better.

    http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr32-123a.html

    More importantly, it damaged the credibility of Nicky Hager, a world expert on the secret State and an author/journalist/researcher who has consistently embarrassed both National and Labour governments for years

    Even if Hager was ‘had’ it undermines his credibility in fact checking.

    Rather than undermine my point on Russell Brown, you reinforce it – namely that Hager’s claims are undermined as they cannot be corroborated. (You merely assumed that I latched onto DPF’s rhetoric.)

    How are you enjoying The Anti-Chomsky Reader? There is much to be said for the similarity between Chomsky’s and Hagar’s writing – much pontification without verifiable sources

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, Ian Wishart is being sued for defamation:

    The case will hear from 29 witnesses over the next five days, including investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who will give evidence about the checks he would have made before publishing the allegations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Jackson at 8.15:

    …It’s obviously someone who had legit access…

    That’s right, Jackson. There is no such thing as hacking, by amateurs, or by professionals like the GCSB.

    Of course it was a hack, by someone who had the technology, and the leftist mates to leak it to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    It showed Hager as an easy mark – a ‘rube’ who could be misled by a fanciful story no matter how devoid of real facts.

    How could anyone place credibility on anything that Hager has written given he is so easily led by what he wants to believe, as opposed to being a true seeker of fact?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The police said that the emails were in printed form and that there was no evidence of a hack. That’s almost a ream of paper that had to be printed out from legit access to the emails.

    Are the police in cahoots with Labour too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Jackson again (8.25):

    …That’s almost a ream of paper that had to be printed out from legit access to the emails…

    The villain(s) obviously passed over a file and the recipients printed it at their leisure. And to say there is no evidence of a hack says only two things: first, what trail did police expect to find – a good hacker leaves no trail; second, the police aren’t top of the world in hacking smarts now, and they are far smarter now than they were when they reported on the National Party hack. As with the Alan Arthur Thomas case, they made a wrong decision and stuck to it.

    The pre-electronic age plods of nearly a decade ago against some leftist rogue employee of the GCSB? No match, not even close to an equal match.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    That’s right Jackson, smear Brash over his private life.

    It’s not a smear. Hager left it out of the book, but his affair is a matter of public record. If you are looking for motive to ruin him, it would be an obvious place to look.

    Like Duck Man Mallard did. But that came back on him, didn’t it?

    The difference here is that the very act of thinking about Trevor Mallard copulating itself triggers a defensive reaction in the brain which obliterates the memory to preserve the mental health of the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    Hate to point out the obvious, the Army previously stated that Stephenson didn’t conduct certain interviews and gave reasons why. They packed their tent up on that recently in a Civil suit. That remains as the bottom of the pile for now when judging the Defence Force’s credibility in the area.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The villain(s) obviously passed over a file and the recipients printed it at their leisure.

    Undoubtedly, but the cops think the file was obtained legitimately.

    Do you really think that a GCSB employee could get away with subverting the party of the NZ establishment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    But the flaw in Hager’s modus operandi is that he amasses what he has learned and then presents it to the public through the prism that best suits his world view, without allowing for the possibility that there might be a plausible explanation for what he has “uncovered”.

    The case he builds is thus rarely troubled by opposing opinions and inconvenient facts, realities that journalists in the mainstream media are morally obliged to take into account, and present.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/5604596/Editorial-Seeing-Afghanistan-through-naive-prism

    But some see right through tricky Nicky. Just another similarity in his writing to that of Chomsky.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Jackson at 8.34:

    but the cops think the file was obtained legitimately…

    Just as they thought the shell cases were left by the accused in the famous murder case.

    …Do you really think that a GCSB employee could get away with subverting the party of the NZ establishment?

    Tom Jackson, the Left has had some great spies and saboteurs. Are New Zealanders too dumb to be among them? If so perhaps the hacker was an immigrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    About now, DPF will be coming to the end of another glorious day on the holiday trail in the USA. Perhaps, as a former director of security in Parliament (or was it just for National?) he might give us his opinion on whether the computer sabotage of Don Brash was by National insiders, or by outsiders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Just as they thought the shell cases were left by the accused in the famous murder case

    Cui bono?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    bhudson
    Interesting that the editorial you quote couldn’t actually point out any errors in Hager’s book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    @mikey,

    I think the point of the editorial was that Hagar sensationalizes information to present a biased view – I.e. he doesn’t let counter factuals occlude the lens he presents his preconceptions through.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Actaul examples of that would be helpful to the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson asks (at 8.42) of the controversial shell cases in the Arthur Allan Thomas case: Cui bono?

    First, to the benefit of the prosecutors, who thought they then had someone they could charge, and second, to the benefit of whomever murdered the couple – and got away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    @mikey,

    I think you’ll find, on re-reading it, that an actual example is exactly what that editorial is – a presentation that the scenario sensationalized in Hager’s book is readily explainable and not the hyped and fanciful conspiracy that Hager tried to paint.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Further to Jackson’s 8.42 Cui bono question?

    He is obviously going to ask next who benefited from the downfall of Brash from the leak.

    That is an ancient logical error, Tom Jackson: from if A then B is a fact, you jump to if B then A. A smart eight- year-old can tell you that is wrong and illogical.

    If John Key benefited from Brash’s fall; there is no logical implication or link at all establishing that therefore he took part in the fall.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There more to that base story, but I don’t have Hager’s book to hand to quote chapter and verse. What I am sure of is if there were any factual errors the editorial writer would have been falling over himself to point them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    How are you enjoying The Anti-Chomsky Reader? There is much to be said for the similarity between Chomsky’s and Hagar’s writing – much pontification without verifiable sources

    You still have yet to provide an example of Chomsky not backing up something he said or wrote with a verifiable source, you are wasting your time with this ongoing idiocy. Unless you can find something I’m not going to bother with this nonsense anymore.

    The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a joke. Just a bunch of tragic right-wing crazies making shit up, something you would know much about, hudson.

    You do know being good at calling people names does not do anything to undermine their credibility. If you manage to find something worth responding to I’ll reply.

    … as opposed to being a true seeker of fact?

    Yeah, right. Which far right lunatic will you claim for this spot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. KevinH (1,221 comments) says:

    What the Leveson Inquiry into Rupert Murdoch’s “News of the World” newspaper uncovered was that journalists were engaged in routinely hacking individuals personal phone records for information that could be commercially exploited. This practice was widespread and common, most media outlets were engaged to some degree in spying on individuals.
    In the last week in the U.K. this issue has once again hit the headlines:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-bigger-than-phone-hacking–soca-sat-on-bluechip-dirty-tricks-evidence-for-years-8730861.html.

    “Illegal practices identified by Soca investigators went well beyond the relatively simple crime of voicemail hacking and also included police corruption, computer hacking and perverting the course of justice.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    That is an ancient logical error, Tom Jackson: from if A then B is a fact, you jump to if B then A

    Cui bono is not intended to be a strictly logical inference. It’s an inference to the best explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a joke. Just a bunch of tragic right-wing crazies making shit up

    As opposed to “tragic [left]-wing crazies making shit up” Yoza?

    Having said that, I doubt you have read The Anti-Chomsky Reader, or material from the contributors, to substantiate your claim. At least I can say I have read Chomsky.

    Enjoy your happy place. I do hope you aren’t too lonely there, with the rest of the world having turned away from the idealism you treasure.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    As opposed to “tragic [left]-wing crazies making shit up” Yoza?

    You just quoted and linked to an editorial opinion piece in an attempt to refute Nicky Hager’s book Other People’s Wars. The editorial unabashedly advertises its pro-US militarist imperialism, and why New Zealand should obey without question, in the last paragraph:

    “…– the Kiwis on whose behalf they are there want them to work alongside military personnel from like-minded nations.

    It should have been news to no-one that the army contingent in Bamiyan, trying, with some success, to restore peace to that community, shares the main camp with a group of Americans, some in civvies. If the Yanks didn’t have our backs, we would be worried.

    And you expect others to take you seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘Enjoy your happy place. I do hope you aren’t too lonely there, with the rest of the world having turned away from the idealism you treasure’

    Able to get any further off the point Hudson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    re Tom Jacks at 9.11:

    ,…cui bono is not intended to be a strictly logical inference. It’s an inference to the best explanation..

    We’re talking about the inference if you benefited from Brash’s fall you caused it, which is, of course rubbish.

    Tom, so you agree it’s a logical error – the one generally known as affirming the consequent.

    And the supposedly “best explanation” requires cast iron evidence. You don’t have it, do you Tom?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Able to get any further off the point Hudson?

    Just saying goodbye (in return) to Yoza, N-NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    The editorial unabashedly advertises its pro-US militarist imperialism

    You see everything through a certain lens Yoza. Even things that are not there. Just as Hager does. And that is why he has little or no credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    bhudson 9:42 pm

    You see everything through a certain lens Yoza. Even things that are not there. Just as Hager does. And that is why he has little or no credibility.

    It is as if you have never heard of George Orwell.

    “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
    ― George Orwell

    “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    “You are a slow learner, Winston.”
    “How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
    “Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?”
    ― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

    “We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    In your own weird little way, hudson, could you explain exactly why the US and its flunkies invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Then explain why New Zealand just had to join in.

    And before you continue making a complete prat of yourself, try and at least understand what Orwell is attempting to convey.

    Off you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    Orwell knew all about your lot when he wrote Animal Farm – four legs good, two legs better.

    That colours all the claims you make of the motivations of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Keeping Stock (10,301 comments) says:

    The common denominator in all this seems to be Bruce Ferguson. That may give some insight into how the GCSB became so dysfunctional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    We’re talking about the inference if you benefited from Brash’s fall you caused it, which is, of course rubbish.

    Tom, so you agree it’s a logical error – the one generally known as affirming the consequent.

    A little logic in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

    The cui bono inference rests upon a probabilistic generalisation under conditions of epistemic uncertainty to the effect that in the absence of additional evidence, the person with the best motive is the best suspect. The conditional premise runs the opposite way from yours and its justification is the generalisation. I.e. if this person has the best motive, they are more likely to be the murderer ceterus paribus. Note the probabilities.

    Do you wish to say that, in the absence of other evidence, the person with the best motive is not the best pick for the suspect? If so, then please don’t join the police.

    Your argument rests on an uncharitable reading of the cui bono argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Or in layman’s terms, it’s reasonable, on the discovery of a murder victim, to start one’s inquiry thinking “Who wanted him dead?”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    The editorial you quoted may have suffered from an ignorance of Orwell’s writing:

    “Freedom of the Press,
    if it means anything at all,
    means the freedom
    to criticize and oppose”

    Your obsession with deferring to authourity would be alarming if it had not already been rendered comical by being so comprehensively lampooned by George Orwell.

    Thank you. You have helpfully contributed more such nonsense to help me prove this point:

    Yoza,

    Orwell knew all about your lot when he wrote Animal Farm – four legs good, two legs better.

    That colours all the claims you make of the motivations of others.

    “Orwell knew all about your lot when he wrote Animal Farm” !?!

    As Simon Leys points out in the New York Review of Books George Orwell, like Chomsky, was more inclined to anarchist philosophy, “… in pointing out that Orwell enlisted in the POUM militia. It should be noted however that a number of POUM members were themselves anarchists and that the POUM (which was one of the smallest militias) fought alongside the anarcho-syndicalist CNT militia—hence the common confusion between POUM and anarchists.”, his contempt for the authouritarian left expressed with the quote, ““The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

    I have no qualms in identifying with the anarchists, regardless of the baggage with which that philosophy has become encumbered.

    Your second sentence – “That colours all the claims you make of the motivations of others” – is rendered completely inadequate as it describes the intent of your first sentence – “Orwell knew all about your lot when he wrote Animal Farm”

    It is confusing to even to begin to attempt to understand how pitifully stupid some people can be. Maybe Orwell had someone like you in mind, hudson, when he wrote, “I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written.”

    Your constant apologies for the violent exercise of power against the defenseless and your antagonism to those who would speak on behalf of those victims who are not permitted a voice is what condemns you. I am not uncovering your foolishness, I only point at it and laugh. You have nothing, you are nothing but a mindless vassal of the powerful who see the exercise of that power as an end in itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson posted at 11.28pm:

    The cui bono inference rests upon a probabilistic generalisation …

    and, later:

    …Note the probabilities…

    Tom, do you really want to get into fuzzy logic (logic using probability), and probablistic logic, which adds probabalistic logic to truth tables? And whose probabilities will you use, because these are subjective?

    Tom, you have, however, revealed the basis of why some of the Leftists not involved in the hack think John Key brought down Don Brash – they believe he had the most to gain. Now you see why there is such heavy-handed and unjust police power in the countries where the Far Left has taken power. Why wasn’t the steel, or the wheat, or the glass production target not met? Instead of analysis, look quickly for those with most to gain: kulaks, former bourgeoisie and aristocrats – they have most to gain from our system’s failure. Shoot them!

    Who decides what fits cui bono? John Key did not know with certainty that he would succeed Brash in any change.

    On the other hand, Leftists at the time thought they and Labour would certainly benefit if Brash fell. Brash had, after all, gained a spurt in popularity with his Orewa speech. If you want to work on probabilities, Tom Jackson, the cui bono inference it was a Leftist hack.

    Squirm as you will, Tom Jackson, you can’t avoid the fact that all smart fingers point towards the National Party hack and burglary being an outside job, and the technical skills needed for this were of the type that a rogue-leftist GCSB specialist would have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    You have nothing, you are nothing but a mindless vassal of the powerful who see the exercise of that power as an end in itself.

    Oh the ironing.

    You see Yoza, what you fail to grasp in the reference to Orwell, and what shows you for what you are, is that which wat dabney and Kimble pointed out to you on another thread a week or so ago – how will will libertarian anarchic paradise you dream of come about? How would you have us reach it?

    Why through coercion of course. You have said yourself that you would be happy to bring about the revolution – getting your hands dirty.

    As I said, Orwell saw your lot coming a mile off – the real point being that you are no better than the totalitarians he outed in Animal Farm.

    (And that would make you a real disappointment to Orwell.)

    I am not uncovering your foolishness, I only point at it and laugh.

    It is wrong of me, but I am. Loudly.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Why through coercion of course. You have said yourself that you would be happy to bring about the revolution – getting your hands dirty.

    There is no way out for an economic system based on perpetual growth which is stuck within an environment of finite resources and limited capacity to allow such growth. Add to that an out of touch and rapacious ruling elite who have no comprehension of the concept ‘enough'; can only continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the everyone else and the seeds of discontent begin to sow themselves.

    This is why our beloved social ‘democracies’ are becoming more and more authouritarian. The expansion of the GCSB’s jurisdiction is only one more example of how this manifests. The West’s global war on terror is more and more obviously becoming a cover for mounting an assault against the real enemy, the domestic populations of those Western states. There is only so much apathy bread and circuses will buy, goonish paramilitaries are the next tier of maintaining the security of our corporate overlords and the presence of these goons will, necessarily, become more common place as social and economic conditions among the general population continue to deteriorate.

    Chomsky

    A French writer, sympathetic to anarchism, wrote in the 1890s that “anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything”—including, he noted those whose acts are such that “a mortal enemy of anarchism could not have done better.”

    It is not difficult to understand the message that passage conveys and, as such, I would defer to the quote attributed to Hippocrates along the lines of , “First do no more harm.”

    There is no need to create situations which allow security apparatus goons the pretext to carry out attacks against social institutions as they regularly act reflexively in such a manner whenever the legitimacy of their authourity is brought into question. An observation that is highlighted by the vehemence and vitriol that spews from this country’s security apparatus when confronted with the mildly inquisitive activities of Hager and Stephenson. Evidence of the credibility of Stephenson and Hager is projected by the manner in which those security apparatchiks react. Stephenson’s credibility is such that a senior member of the special forces threatened to have him killed if he returned to Afghanistan. The iron fist of state violence is becoming harder to conceal beneath the fraying charade of ‘freedom of expression’ necessary to promote the illusion of democracy.

    I am sure George Orwell would understand exactly what I am saying if he were alive today and I have no doubt he would also admire the effort to which Noam Chomsky has gone in demonstrating how such subterfuge is a necessary tool of establishment apparatchiks. George Orwell took up arms against people like you, hudson, during the Spanish civil war.

    You, on the other hand hudson, will continue to wear your brown shirt with pride and those jackboots look a comfortable fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    You, on the other hand hudson, will continue to wear your brown shirt with pride and those jackboots look a comfortable fit.

    According to Orwell Yoza, it is you who are in the jackboots – he outed you as every bit as reprehensible as the oppression [your world view] you seek to overthrow

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    You have nothing.

    You say nothing.

    You are nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    What I said Yoza was that Orwell’s extremely clear message in Animal Farm was that those who would use coercion to overthrow oppression are identical to those they oppose.

    In other words, it was about you.

    That speaks volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    What I said Yoza was that Orwell’s extremely clear message in Animal Farm was that those who would use coercion to overthrow oppression are identical to those they oppose.

    No, completely untrue. What you are saying, and continue to say, is anyone who questions the authourity of Western establishment dogma is incapable of rational thought.

    You have nothing because you only possess that with which your corporate masters equipped you.

    You say nothing because you only express that of which your corporate masters informed you.

    You are nothing because you only exist as your corporate masters allow you.

    You are an unthinking tool of the corporate agenda.

    “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

    ― George Orwell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    Unlike you, I am not the danger Orwell wrote about.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. thedavincimode (6,712 comments) says:

    You have nothing because you only possess that with which your corporate masters equipped you.

    You say nothing because you only express that of which your corporate masters informed you.

    You are nothing because you only exist as your corporate masters allow you.

    You are an unthinking tool of the corporate agenda.

    Somebody dial 111. Order the padded wagon.

    Yoza, how many boxes of Weetbix did it take to collect those and how many in the set?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    I am not the danger Orwell wrote about.

    No, you are only a tool of the danger George Orwell wrote about.

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

    ― George Orwell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

    Which is wholly different to proposing coercion to overthrow perceived oppression and impose your way.

    Which is your way Yoza. And Orwell saw you coming. So much so that he wrote about you. Only he didn’t call you Yoza; he called you “Squealer”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Griff (7,519 comments) says:

    Why is it that those who cry loudest for freedom are those who seek to enslave us?

    New Zealand is rated in the top four freedom.
    By both the left and the right wing commentators.

    Yoza and the rest of the 1% think they represent freedom.
    Instead they represent a greedy demand for the benefit of others effort .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Do you see hudson? You should try to be more like thedavincimode; be open about having nothing to say.

    “Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Oh, I see Yoza. I see right through you.

    As did Orwell. Such prescience. He knew you were coming. And he knew exactly how you would be what you despise.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Griff 10:13 pm

    Why is it that those who cry loudest for freedom are those who seek to enslave us?

    Spoken like a true slave.

    “Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.”

    ― George Orwell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. thedavincimode (6,712 comments) says:

    be open about having nothing to say

    Is this why we are hopeless at cricket? We just can’t pick up the line and length?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Griff (7,519 comments) says:

    It was also a reference towards redbaiter claiming he represents freedom repeatedly as well as your predisposition yoza.
    As to Griff pedaling the corporate word
    :lol:
    Griff operates his own reality which has little to do with others want’s.
    Happiness is not the word you mean the state you need to evaluate is contentment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    bhudson 10:20 pm

    And he knew exactly how you would be what you despise.

    If you actually understood Orwell at all, hudson, you would know that he despised the unthinking acceptance of establishment doublespeak in which you seem so proficient.

    He wasn’t prescient, you moron. He was writing from experience. He experienced first hand the mindless brutality of authouritarianism, regardless of whether it was cloaked in left or right wing rhetoric or presented as freedom by a corporate marketing campaign.

    Stephenson and Hager, the reason for this thread, are guilty of threatening the establishment narrative. And those who question the establishment narrative disturb you , hudson. Afterall, to question establishment dogma is to question reality.

    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

    ― George Orwell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    He experienced first hand the mindless brutality of authouritarianism, regardless of whether it was cloaked in left or right wing rhetoric

    Oh he was prescient alright – he knew there would always be more to come. He knew there would be more hypocrites who would preach freedom while carrying their versions of Napolean, Squealer and their likes in their hearts.

    He knew you were coming Yoza – a totalitarian cloaked in a thin veneer of freedom; a despot in disguise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    Heh, you couldn’t bring yourself to finish quoting my sentence could you, hudson?

    He experienced first hand the mindless brutality of authouritarianism, regardless of whether it was cloaked in left or right wing rhetoric or presented as freedom by a corporate marketing campaign.

    I doubt you are actually human at all, you come across as some kind of pre-programmed automaton. Something incapable of free thought. Something that is capable of believing only what its masters allow it to believe. Something unworthy of sentience.

    “Perhaps a man really dies when his brain stops, when he loses the power to take in a new idea.”

    ― George Orwell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Heh, you couldn’t bring yourself to finish quoting my sentence could you, hudson?

    I don’t like to fuel your delusions by appearing to legitimize them Yoza.

    The danger Orwell wrote of was not corporate marketing, but you – the charlatan who would dress up in a cloak of freedom to hide their totalitarian core.

    You and your kind are what Orwell despised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    You and your kind are what Orwell despised.

    You do know you mean people like Nicky Hager, Jon Stephenson, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Julian Assange, Jane Kelsey, and so on. We are Orwell’s kind, hudson. Which is why you appear so utterly ridiculous.

    Please, hudson, provide a list of people you think were Orwell’s kind.

    I could do with another laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    We are Orwell’s kind, hudson

    You most certainly are Yoza. The kind who would use coercion to overthrow [perceived] oppression – exactly the porkers Orwell warned us about in Animal Farm.

    You have outed yourself as being what you claim to despise Yoza. What an abject fraud you are. And for all to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Yoza (1,817 comments) says:

    So you cannot provide an example of someone, anyone who you would define as Orwell’s modern contemporary?

    It seems a perfectly legitimate request, as you have invested enough energy in attempting to define Orwell’s concerns. Surely an Orwell expert like you would have no trouble coming up with at least one or two names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.