Dirty Politics: Sleepwalking towards fascism

Whaledump @whaledump · 2h

This is a corrupt network of politically-connected individuals who launder political & media influence for money, power & personal revenge.

• Replied to 0 times

Putting the fox in the hen house in charge of investigating the crime scene

Dirty politics and deep corruption in New Zealand

By Seemorerocks

Events in the political sphere in New Zealand are moving

very fast. 

We are only three weeks away from an election and we have seen revelations  in the book Dirty Politics that expose deep political, corporate corruption that also involve the New Zealand media.

Media coverage of Nikki Hager's book Dirty politics is centred on the two or so episodes which explode attempts by the political elite to create an image of the Prime Minister as a 'decent man" who is 'above politics' -  while behind the scenes,  a campaign of seeking out dirt and sexual scandal, to either attack or blackmail political opponents, (or people simply inconvenient to the carrying-out of the right-wing agenda of the government)  is carried out at arm's-length by Cameron Slater of the right-wing blog Whaleoil,  to which people in the Prime Minister's department have released privileged information that was not available to anybody else.

The book has shown that both prime minister John Key and Minister of Justice, Judith Collins have had direct involvement with Slater and his blog

John Key's response to the revelations in the book has been to dismiss it as simply "a Left-wing smear campaign by the Left" and a collection of allegations for which,Key says,  there  is no proof. 

The fact that the actual emails quoted in the book has been released to the public by the source of the hacked emails, #Whaledump which back up each of the claims in the book, does not seem to worry John Key in the slightest.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

---- Josef Goebbels

In fact John Key has never allowed facts to get in the way of his agenda.

Over the weekend, the announcement was made of information made available to the PM's department that implicatied Collins in a conspiracy with Slater and businessman Mark Hotchin of the failed company Hanover Finance to attack the head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Adam Feeley who was investigating the case. 

This information led to the resignation (read sacking) of the Minister of Justice Collins.

See: Judith Collins resigns: The money men and how they toppled her

A day prior to this, the leader of the NZ First party, Winston Peters, revealed that the project being made to him by a "Bagman" of Collins sounding out for cooperation subsequent to a leadership challenge to John Key.

See: Peters stands by Collins claim

Whether Collins had simply become a liability because of the book, or whether Key had been shocked by Peters' allegations about Collins'  going behind his back, it is clear that John Key has decided to move against Collins in such a way that would avoid having to admit the narrative put forward by Hager's book - and in so doing, avoid admitting his own culpability.

This morning Key stated that within days he would be announcing the terms of reference to an Inquiry into the Collins affair, something that I will discuss later in the article that I would qualify as allowing the fox in the hen house to run an investigation into the crime scene

See: Key shuns Labour over Collins inquiry

If you want the Mark Hotchin emails leaked by #Whaledump GO HERE

For the sake of people with overseas, and for people who have not with the book I would like to bring to your attention aspects that have been completely overlooked by the media in this country – probably because the media themselves are exposed as playing a role.

However, the corruption goes far deeper than that and it involves the New Zealand media

It is that but I would like to point your attention to in the following excerpts from the book Dirty Politics.

EXCERPT FROM CHAPTER 12 "the Smiling Assassin", DIRTY POLITICS

A much more serious attack occurred in June 2014, just three months before election day. The previous month National Cabinet Minister Maurice Williamson have been forced to resign when it came to light that he had phoned a senior police officer to advocate for a Chinese immigrant businessman and National party donor named Donghua Liu,who had been arrested on domestic violence charges. He had told the officer that "Western Europe you a lot of money in New Zealand" and was accused of trying to influence the police investigation. National's close ties to wealthy Chinese immigrant donors had become a serious vulnerability for the party and they work to Labour.

Six weeks later a scandal up for Cunliffe over the same businessmen, Donghua Liu. On Tuesday 17 June, during a press conference announcing labour's policy on the KiwiSaver saving scheme, TV3 asked Cunliffe:

TV3:  Have you ever met Donghua Liu?

David Cunliffe: I don't recall meeting him, no.

TV3: did you have anything to do with the granting of his permanent residency?

David Cunliffe: No I did not.

TV3: Did you advocate on his behalf at all? 
David Cunliffe: Nope.

TV3: Were you're aware of official advice advising against granting permanent residency?

David Cunliffe: Not to my recollection.

The very next morning the government released a letter to the media, under the Official Information Act, which Cunliffe have written to the Immigration Service in 2003 about Liu's residency application. The media naturally challenged Cunliffe about his previous days denial. "Why did you live about it yesterday?" a reporter asked. "I did not," Cunliffe replied. "You did, you said no twice, three times… If it was not a lie, what was it?" When Cunliffe said it was "certainly a failure to recall" the reporter responded, "You stuck your neck out pretty far, though, didn't you?"

By 1 PM the New Zealand Herald is cheap political commentator, John Armstrong, was writing, "David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour's leader may now be very much in order." Commentators joined in discussing which Labour MP might take over the leadership if Cunliffe was forced to stand down.

It all looked devastating for Cunliffe and Labour, and it undoubtedly damaged their already dented election prospects. Within an hour John Key had joined in from New York, saying that "politics is about trust" and after this the public would struggle to trust the Labour leader. "Mr Cunliffe has asked New Zealanders to trust him that he's had no involvement with Donghua Liu yet this letter suggests the opposite quite clearly and he'll need to explain his actions." Deputy Prime Minister Bill English set Calendar had been "tricky" and could not be trusted.

From the start was something fishy about the scandal. The first clues appeared the following day, 19 June. New Zealand Herald journalists asked Minister Michael Woodhouse, who had released the Cunliffe letter, if he had told John Key about it in advance. At 2 PM Woodhouse said he had not told key; at 3 PM he changed the story and said officials from his office had briefed Key's office on the letter: and then at 7 PM you said he had personally told Key's office about the letter and arranged for them to be send copies. He had told Key's staff on approximately 10 May. They had weeks to plan what what they would do with the letter.

The Cunliffe-Liu "scandal" occurred after the period covered by the Slater documents, so the exact story of what happened is not known. This is the situation the public is usually in, of needing to recognise political manipulation from the available clues. Tell-tale signs from the political attacks described an earlier chapters are plain to see. There can be no doubt that the government orchestrated the release of the letter to harm Cunliffe.

First, as with the Goff- SIS hit, the journalists have been tipped off to make the official information request – by someone who knew about the Liu letter., Next, the requested information was released two days after the requests were submitted.

The most obviously suspicious was the way the story came out. Why was Cunliffe asked very specific questions about his personal links to Liu just 24 hours before the fast tracked letter reached the media? At that stage though one outside the government supposedly even knew that the letter or any linked to knew existed. The political damage arose because Cunliffe was asked those questions when he did not know about the letter. It was the denial, not the letter itself, that provided ammunition for the accusations of untrustworthiness and lying. As with the Peters three-visits and Mein Kampf hits, the target was confronted with a story out of nowhere. As Slater had said to Ede during the 2011 election, they had run a sting on Cunliffe, set him up and he went off like a firecracker.

It is important to note that Cunliffe had not done anything improper by writing, or signing, the letter. It was a standard request on behalf of a constituent: hard-working electorate executives write hundreds like this every year. It noted that Donghus Liu, who lived in Cunliffe's electorate, had been waiting eight months since his application had been accepted for processing and said "it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a decision on this case". That was all. Cunliffe had not "advocated" for Liu, or apparently even met him: the residency application, it seems, had been arranged by the immigration consultant.

The idea that Cunliffe would deliberately lie was much less likely than that, 11 years later, he could simply not remember the letter. It was one of the thousands from constituents who had asked for help during his years as an MP. The letter itself would have cause little controversy. But because of the well- timed questioning, he would be decried as untrustworthy and people would be calling for his resignation just 24 hours later.

The other side of orchestration was noticed by Danyl McLauchlin on his blog, The Dim – Post. He noted that "a couple of people have asked me on Twitter why I think the David Cunliffe – Liu letter story came from the Nats instead of just being good hard reporting by the Herald journalist". He explained that someone with the pseudonym Barnsley Bill had commented on the post he had written about opinion polls, saying: "Within 24 hours the polls are going to be the least of Cunliffe's problems. Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal." This comment had been left at 10. 21 am on Tuesday 17 June, before Cunliffe was asked the Liu questions, and, indeed, about 24 hours before the Cunliffe letter was received by the New Zealand Herald and hit the news. Cunliffe had been asked the four Liu questions questions at a media event where he was announcing the party's KiwiSaver savings policy. The event started at 10. 15 a.m., and the questions were not asked until nearly the end, at about 10. 45 am. In other words, Barnsley Bill and in advance that the scandal was coming.

Barnsly Bill, real name Russell Beaumont, has already appeared a few times in this book, in conversation with Slater. When Slater could not keep his excitement to himself, he regularly chatted online to Beaumont and others about this coming hits. Beaumont's pre-knowledge strongly points to Slater being involved. The final likeness to the other Slater-Ede attacks was the timing. The trap was sprung on a Wednesday before Parliament's 3–4 p.m. general debate, the best time for government MPs to attack the opposition. Deputy Prime Minister Bill English led the way, reading out each of the questions and answers from the Cunliffe questioning the day before. "That was yesterday" he said. "Today, of course, we have the letter that he wrote advocating exactly for his permanent residency." No one, he said, trusted Cunliffe concerning his links with Liu.

Next, Woodhouse, the minister who had released the letter, also read Cunliffe's questions and answers from the day before, and said it was "not the behaviour of somebody who should aspire to lead this country". Health Minister Tony Ryall said, "So here is Mr Cunliffe, who only a few hours ago denied you'd ever met Mr you and… Here we have today a letter from Mr Cunliffe making representations on the half of Mr Liu… It is usually embarrassing for Mr Cunliffe and for the Labour party." And so on. It had been an neatly conducted smear.

Meanwhile are more important story was missed. In arranging to to tip off the media and release the letter, the government had abused its powers and its control over public service files. Any government can make endless mischief by digging into the files of its predecessors, but they usually refrain from doing this. And the usual understanding is that the current government checks with the previous government before releasing politically sensitive material requested via the OIA. But in this case confronting Cunliffe without warning was crucial to the plan.

As I argued in The Hollow Men, the trick of political media management is not to get this or that press release covered; it is about "framing" how journalists perceive issues. The National party strategies described here were designed to make their opponents seem incompetent and I'm trustworthy, and they worked when ever, as happened with the Liu letter, the journalists in effect joined in their attacks.

Which brings us back to the quote from Simon Lusk in the first chapter. "There are a few basic propositions with negative campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right to continue to turn out, and drives away the independents.' In short, many people simply stop participating in politics. If politicians cannot be trusted, if politics looks like a petty or ugly game and if no one seems to be talking about things that matter, then what's the point of bothering to participate? Just leave them to it.... Election tactics do not have to be just about winning votes; they can be equally effective if groups of people in society just stop voting altogether. We should not assume that everyone thinks slower voter turnout is a bad idea.

Sitting in the midst of the negative politics was John Key....


This section that illustrates the attitude of the television media towards Cameron Slater immediately preceding the "Dirty Politics" revelations, is illustrative

Watch the video below.

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA

.......On 22 July 2014, as this book neared completion, the public broadcaster Television New Zealand did a prime-time item about Cameron Slater and his links to the Prime Minister. It is a perfect illustration of how the people in this book could get away with what they do. The item which appeared on TVNZ's 7 pm  magazine programme, Seven Sharp, began with a reporter joking with Slater in his kitchen."I wouldn't want to get on your bad side, I'll tell you that," she said.  "That's a very wise thing,' Slater replied. "You could put that… that should be in the show, you know," 'I don't want to get on your bad side"'

'Cam Slater has powerful friends','the reporter continued, looking at the contacts on Slater's mobile phone. 'Judith Collins, Patrick Gower, Paul Henry – very nice. These are just his favourites you know, the ones he calls all the time. And look, yeah, you've got JK in there. So we figure, if he's got the Prime Minister's ear, we'd better get to know him.' After they went out driving in Slater's car, she concluded 'He's actually quite likeable… You can understand why John Key talks to him. He's way less crazy than it used to be. He makes political in-jokes… He says outrageous things… And he has amazing gossip… No wonder the PM takes his calls. No wonder Newstalk ZM have him in for an hour-long radio show every Monday… How things have changed. There was a time when the media wouldn't go near Cam Slater.'

The reporter was surprised to learn that Slater is a Christian, which he was during almost all the events covered in this book, but said, "he's still super unkind online and is got his sights set firmly on Kim Dotcom. Cam reckons he's got dirt he'll release just before the election. [To Slater] Can we have a hint as to what the Kim Dotcom stuff will be?' Slater said, "Ah, nah, not at this point." She asked, as if dirt were an acceptable part of election campaigns, "Do you think it's enough to derail his campaign?".  Slater replied, 'I think with the magnitude of what I'm sitting on, it will derail his campaign. It will derail Hone Harawira's as well." She asked, "So should we be scared of you?" Slater answered, "Every politician should be scared of me."

The item ended with the host Mike Hosking saying, "Love it'. Co-host Tony Street asked Hosking if he was on Slater's top 10 contact list. "Nah," he said, "although I do note that he quotes my editorials quite a lot, so clearly a man of taste." If this had been scripted by Slater, not a word would have needed to be different. Lack of media scrutiny is a big part of why John Key's government could get away with running the friendly, relaxed leader image while being involved in continuous negative politics.

To watch the TVNZ programme GO HERE

A lot of liberal-minded people are of the opinion that the role of the media is simply because the media is starved of funds and all we need is a policy to provide funds for positive journalism.

If only things were that simple.

It is not for nothing that modern media is described as 'corporate media'. It used to be described as the Fourth Estate which describes its role in society as a 'manufacturer of consent' - and more lately (since 9/11 and the Iraq war) as a perpetrator of lies and misinformation.

While I'm sure that individual journalists have good intentions their editors and the corporate owners of the media do not (even if it is state-owned like the BBC or Radio New Zealand.

There is a prevailing ideology and that is Right-Wing - and it  supports the neo-liberal (and often neo-Con) views of the governments.

Look at the journalists above simply drooling over Cameron Slater and the degree of power and influence he has. The fact that he is semi-criminal and specialises in finding dirt on people, does not seem to worry them in the least.

And on the sedate Radio New Zealand, left-wing commentator Martyn Bradbury was banned for life as far-Right apologists like Matthew Hooten or David Farrar (who hides his role of working for the National Party) continue to appear regularly as 'media pundits'.

The media has been shown to connive in, and practise attack politics.

It is no wonder at all that the bulk of Nicky Hager's revelations have not found the light of day on the media for the media themselves are deeply involved.

They are themselves perpetrators of dirty politics

.....

Summing up the book, Nicky Hager goes on  -

The problem is not the journalists. The problem is commercialised news and repeated cuts to newsroom staff. Without serious action, it will only get worse. The changes needed so that quality news is recognised as an essential public good and publicly-funded like other essential services. The most hopeful option is a dramatic increase in long-term public funding and statutory independence for non-commercial television radio and (perhaps eventually) print news media. This could be built on existing public broadcasting, including a decommercialised TVNZ news service. Important elements of this will be regional news gathering and the potential to supply news content to small private news organisations.... 

.....Finally, news media need to get the audiences and readers genuinely independent political, social and business commentators, not party aligned or PR people. This would instantly help to raise the standard of political debate and conduct.

Sounds great! A bit like the news media I remember when I was growing up.

.... John Key's government was unusually aggressive at attacking and trying to silence scientists, journalists, public interest groups and any other people who publicly criticised its actions. It cut public funding for a wide array of organisations that represented in advocated for communities. The essence of democratic government is that the widest possible range of people have their share of influence and equal chance of being heard. The politics revealed in this book is about small numbers of people trying to have much more than their fair share.

All academics, scientists, medical staff and others on public salaries should be actively encouraged to participate in pressing social and political issues, and should be protected in their careers when they do so. Likewise, all public employees should be encouraged and feel safe to participate in politics in their own time, thereby showing the politics is valued. The country needs to face up to and reverse the fear that many people feel about being publicly active. Government should also provide secure funding for a range of independent research and policy institutes, providing a reservoir of the shows, writers and researchers to develop policy and be available to comment on important public interest issues. Each of these initiatives is designed to ensure the public debate commentary are not dominated by the Nick Naylors and Whale Oils.

Nicky Hager has made a unique and important contribution (aloing with his source #Whaledump) in uncovering the rot in New Zealand politics as well as the corporate and media culture.

Having said that, I cannot find his comments anything less than naive, (if extremely well-meaning). 

While, thanks to Hager's revelations we may see somewhat of a turn-around in the worse abuses I think NZ society has changed forever.

As much as anything it is because of international developments and the era in which we live - of growing climate chaos, of energy decline and the response of governments everywhere to take measures to keep the global ponzi scheme going and to counter the inevitable social unrest that is to come.

New Zealand, sadly is not exempt from any of it.

Whatever we would like there are simply not the resources to go against the tide and to restore a vibrant, independent media.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the possible election of a Labour-Green government (whatever the rhetoric) will do little more than postpone a slide towards fascism.

More of this below.

Sleepwalking towards fascism

New Zealand is a small country and throughout its history has gererally been guided by a sense of decency and fair pla - at least in a relative sense. 

NZ does not have a constitution and did away with its Upper House back in 1951. Only the state of Queensland in Australia shares this particular arrangement of a unicameral parliament). New Zealand democracy relies on legal precedent and the existence of an independent judiciary. 

The judiciary, however independent acts within the law – and the law is made by governments. 

An article on the NZ parliament is HERE

All that is needed to introduce repressive laws is a simple majority in the Parliament of the day. 

Perhaps not even that. 

All that is needed is for a government, like the present John Key government, to pay more no more than lip service to democratic oversight of the Executive and to, as this government has, to erode democratic procedures and oversight.

Once the government no longer observes the Social Contract; once it  ceases to play by the rules - we are only one heartbeat away from Tyranny.

Already, this government has done much to erode democratic oversight. Any legislation seems to be of importance is passed "under urgency". 

Normally legislation would go through a select committee stage where input from other political parties and from the public,  would be allowed before legislation passes through into law. 

This has been bypassed more and more by this government which has also used "orders of council" in recent years to cancel democratic elections of the Regional Council in Canterbury. 

Changes to legislation such as the Resource Management Act, designed to 'fast-track' development proposals and 'remove bureaucracy', have make it much more difficult "(and expensive) for the public to oppose environmentally and socially- harmful development proposals such as mining, open-sea drilling for oil and fracking.

Government has become government by and for corporate interests.

With 'Dirty Politics' all of this has been brought out into the open and we now have a unique chance to defeat the secret agenda of the ruling elite – especially the egregious corruption within government, business and media.

To some extent this is made possible because from supporting this government at every level  the tide has turned within the media, and journalists have to some extent, turned against their once-beloved John Key ("Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned").Journalists have in some cases turned on each other.

My fear, however, is that a population which has come to learn of all of this, and despite this, returns the present government in the polls on 20 September,  will essentially be getting its assent to real, and not potential, fascism.

The government, if returned to power, will go through the farcical process of an Inquiry into its own activities – the result of which is foreseeable. 

It will no doubt be a whitewash and will, without a doubt find that neither Judith Collins, nor John Key, or anyone else in government has done nothing wrong. 

They may force some lowly member of the public service – Jason Ede to fall on his sword while Cameron Slater, now exposed for what he is, will continue to produce his poison.

What is clear is that nothing will change. 

All that will have changed is that fascism will become an actual reality and the people of New Zealand will have given away their freedom naively believing that dirty politics is nothing more less than "politics as usual".

The climate of fear amongst scientists, social figures and thinking people that Nicky Hager describes will become a permanent feature of New Zealand society.

On the other hand, if on the 20th September a Labour – Green coalition is voted into power it will of course be a victory against the forces of overt fascism. 

However, what will have changed? 

I believe that a new government will do nothing more than to slightly slow down an agenda which is international in its scope. 

Social cohesion and the social contract that has ruled this country for as many years as I remember (and before that)  is already broken.

I am afraid that:

"All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again"