Comments by "John Donwood" (@johndonwood4305) on "1News"
channel.
-
72
-
44
-
33
-
32
-
24
-
20
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
This is all about raising the next generation of children to get used to the surveillance state, you know, for their "protection" so that they don't resist or become too independent. They want obedient children who will grow up to become obedient adults who don't think or read but smile and cheer when the All Blacks play. They want the next generation of children to give in to peer pressure so that they conform to the group and they want the next generation of parents to become the wardens. They want a population who will passively accept the progressive erosion of their civil liberties, the loss of jobs to automation, vile media, the rise of living expenses, the dumbing down of the education system, biometric identification, RFID chipping, the loss of traditions and heritage, the loss of national identity, and so on. The leash, literally and metaphorically, conditions children to accept that there will always be someone watching them.
9
-
It was never about free speech or hate speech but ALL speech. Soon there will be NO speech which is what they want. The fact that the media is exact about the number of protesters on either side exposes the possibility that the protesters were paid actors also known as 'crisis' actors. If the protest is legitimate, why aren't police officers pulling the two gentlemen apart at the start? Why aren't they being tackled and cuffed? Why are cameramen circling the two men? The cameramen shouldn't be too close or they'd be in danger. If the 'free speech' protesters are legitimate, then why are their protest signs written in tune with typical free speech arguments such as "Wake up", "multiculturalism is evil", or the use of quotes and photos of Orwell? Why aren't the signs naming those really in power? Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros? It's almost like the 'free speech' protestors are controlled opposition, they're protesting to stand up for free speech, but not too far that it exposes how fake the protest is. Where are the rows of arrested individuals sitting on the ground with their wrists tied with those plastic ties behind their backs like at the TPP signing protest? Regardless, racial abuse is unacceptable, but for the sake of a healthy, working "democracy", some degree of discussion about race is inevitable and indeed necessary given New Zealand's past. Those who wish to impose their ideological straitjacket on others should make sure that they themselves do not harbour any prejudice against others in whatever way or that would be hypocrisy. Now New Zealand played right into the hands of the globalists who want censorship everywhere. As O'Brien says to Winston Smith: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— for ever". Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Martin Smith
Those are some valid points. On the one hand you deny that Winston is a "nationalist". Yet on the other hand, you accuse Labour and the Greens of being "Marxists". Let me ask you this, if Winston went with National, would you have accused Winston of being a fascist, corporate pig? No government is ever going to satisfy a nation. The benefit of MMP is that no one party is able to govern alone, so that a wide range of parties with differing views and perspectives have to cooperate in order to govern to some degree of efficiency. By the same token, it also means that ideologies such as the ones you mentioned, are not taken too far that it harms the country. National does not want to share power. The fact is, New Zealand has never truly practiced socialism nor purely conservatism, but we have state socialism and state conservatism and both of these ideologies are the remains of the strong liberal heritage that goes back to the 1890-1910s. That's also why people can't tell the difference between Labour and National, because they exert their authority on society through their state owned enterprises. That's why Labour and National have both pursued liberal policies and even neoliberal policies, because both parties trace their history back to the Liberal government. The two party system is failing. Now Winston is a utilitarian as he believes in the greatest good for the greatest number and I agree with this. I believe in Winston through his deeds, not words or ideologies for that matter.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Come on Bridges, National didn't focus on anything. All National did was sit around doing nothing, which to be fair, is what National did the last time they were in government. The coalition government has been under sustained attack from various sides: the Southern/Molyneux controversy, protests against Brash speaking at Massey/Auckland universities, nurses strikes, teachers strikes, Shane Jones's "slush fund" controversy, Auckland Rail link controversy, the Derek Handley controversy, the Sroubek controversy and so on. All of these instances have no doubt hurt the government's public standing. The coalition government has been tested where it really matters and that is transparency and integrity and it takes transparency and integrity to make MMP work. National crumbled and went into damage control when Jami-Lee Ross went public. National hates MMP which is evident in how Bridges claims to be focussing on the party vote. Seems like Bridges is trying to move into Winston Peters's territory in terms of policy perhaps as a signal that National are happy to work with or without Mr Peters at the next election. Still, have to give Bridges some credit and take him at his word.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@felixrudder5796 Fair enough. But if Harry and Meghan were commoners would they still enjoy the same respect and reverence from the public? Is Harry held in esteem because of the things he says and does or is it because he is a prince? It's very easy to confuse the two. Listen to the reason given by the girl sitting in the middle for admiring Markle at 3:02 which is that her admiration of Markle is because the other girls in her educational year level admire her. Is this healthy for a democracy? Every action by individuals in the public sphere is a ratification of policy in some way. When a serious public matter arises, we need a public capable of reason and sound judgement to solve such problems peacefully. When six major corporations control 90% of the media and in turn what the public see, hear, and then think, then I have concerns as to the truthfulness of what these media companies tell the public. I am concerned about the level of conditioning of the public through propaganda and we shouldn't just give our admiration, respect, and especially our minds and intellects to just anybody because that's the way it's always been or because the media tells us to or because an overwhelming majority reach a consensus regarding a matter. Edward Bernays and the entire public relations machine has altered forever the entire democratic process beyond repair. I am concerned that celebrities use their charisma to endorse certain ideologies and policies to sway an unsuspecting, trusting, naive, gullible, and, to a certain degree, ignorant public. I don't doubt Harry's intentions, but when we as a species need a prince to tell us to be kind to one another when this should be commonsense, then I fear for the society to come.
2
-
Nope, not that. But the previous government signed the TPP agreement without proper public consultation, passed the GCSB bill also without public consultation, wasted millions on a flag referendum which amounted to nothing, partially privatised power companies despite an unbinding referendum which returned an overwhelming disapproval, donated $13 million to Crooked Hillary's presidential campaign, privatised state owned enterprises, provided corporate welfare, caused a massive gap between the rich and poor and admitted that caring for children in poverty would be too much of a task, dismantled the Labour Department, threatened to take away tea breaks, permitted mining and oil drilling on a massive scale that now many lakes and rivers are too poisonous to swim in, and so on. Labour and Trashnal are two parties of the business party. The previous government has crossed the line of no return that even Labour is unable to solve. Sure Labour can lessen the impact, but it can't fully reverse the damage left by Trashnal. Labour's inaction seems better than Trashnal's typical policy which is just to sell everything the taxpayer owns and leave the public to fend for themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Times are tough and the people are desperate to make ends meet. It's either gambling or crime. "Academics" are commodities produced by "universities" and are paid large sums of money to avoid doing any actual research to keep the population ignorant while offering "explanations" to satisfy the lowest common denominator. Goodbye Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Kant, Berkeley, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Rousseau; hello Marx, Foucault, Derrida, Bourdieu, Zizek.
2
-
2
-
Fastfood workers went on strike some time ago. Why were they ignored? I guess because it was a blue collar dispute and so there was little for the media to manipulate. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZEI, PPTA and other similar organisations are actually acting as businesses rather than as unions. If they really were unions, then they would be thrilled to return to the bargaining table after nine hard years and willing to find some compromise. However, as businesses they care only for the bottom line as Milton Friedman stated. Listen to Payne's words at 0:41 seconds "...it's NOT WHAT NURSES WANT to be doing but they feel that they NEED to be here..." In other words, nurses must obey what the "union" tells them. The reason why the "union" is taking action is because when wages rise, the amount the "union" takes from its members also rises. It's the same everywhere really. Even the UN, built on land donated by John D. Rockefeller, is the world's largest corporation. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros run the world. I don't believe the nurses are at fault and neither is the government, but those opportunists and schemers within the Nurses Organisation. The rule of law doesn't exist because it has been paid for and bought and sold to the corporations. The only law is the degree to which money is able to get things done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
zbudda It sounds like you've been reading Murray Rothbard. Anyway, I see what your saying. I agree that a decentralised education system managed by local councils would be a great idea to a degree. This way local communities are responsible for educating children and not bureaucrats and ignorant academics. However, we may end up giving too much responsibility to local councils and certain councils, such as that of the city in which I live, are irresponsible with money. I don't mind this kind of voluntary education system, but your concept is more advanced than mine is. I think the education system is voluntary enough, especially in regards to secondary and tertiary education. I don't trust businesses to run schools because businesses only care for profits and this as the ends will always have priority over the means. We are dealing with very profound human concerns which are unable to be be solved with credits, incentives, or tax refunds. What we desire is a balance of harmony between colliding and collective interests. Businesses and the public are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum and this is a reality for many kiwis unfortunately. The state, then, is not perfect and nor are state schools, but the state is (but not always) responsible to its public and vice versa. The relationship between the public and the state is always one of compromise. I can't say the same with corporations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1