Youtube comments of John Donwood (@johndonwood4305).
-
517
-
426
-
258
-
245
-
245
-
227
-
220
-
207
-
198
-
194
-
185
-
184
-
161
-
159
-
157
-
150
-
138
-
134
-
127
-
118
-
116
-
108
-
100
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
86
-
79
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
66
-
63
-
62
-
59
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
39
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
It's all over. This interview was eye-opening in the sense that politicians see the people of New Zealand as merely statistics and figures to be shuffled around to be indexed, calculated, and percentaged which is why much of the discussion had to do with the ability of New Zealand to handle the influx of refugees. Both Dann and Ghahraman run through a series of arguments on why migrants should be brought to New Zealand. However, the interview only looks at the benefits while everyone else is looking at how multiculturalism is failing in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Canada. Why is the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban being attacked by the EU? If the migrants will be a benefit to New Zealand, then let them stay in their own country and rebuild their homes. Who's going to support them? Hordes of migrants are bringing with them diseases thought wiped out as well as crime. There are indeed benefits, but only for the refugees and businesses who perhaps desire a low wage economy. Nowhere in the interview is it mentioned if whether refugees can be sent back to their nation of origin if it is stable enough for them to return because it should be. All Ghahraman does is pour guilt and blame all over kiwis and inviting refugees over to New Zealand isn't going to do any good. This interview was brought to you by the letters U and N.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
There are things about his "disappearance" that seem odd. I remember before he disappeared he did videos mentioning that he had a good night's sleep and then he immediately went into a rant about how he was afraid of being detained and I thought that seemed suspicious because a person fearing for their life would be stressed and unable to sleep well. Secondly, the thing that made me suspicious was that everything happens to Lira offline in that he claims to have been detained by state security but it's not impossible for them to have arrested him during a livestream which would make it more credible, but no, it happens when there's no camera around so we only have Lira's side of the story to go on. Thirdly, Lira claims to have been warned not to leave Kharkiv or wherever he is, but they don't even make him wear an ankle monitor or something, some kind of documentation, or even send an officer for a routine check every now and then which Lira could capture on a livestream to prove that he's been telling the truth. Why would they even want Lira to remain in the country at all if he's promoting the enemy? Fourthly, Lira should have acknowledged his gratitude and relief that it was the state security services took him into custody and not the AZOV battalion or some militia that abducted him like he presumed it might. Despite Lira's claims, Ukrainian state security has not even made a statement. Until there's actual evidence, I'm sure his disappearance was for attention for patreon subs/money.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The corporate media criticises "fake news" and "misinformation", but whose statistics and views do they quote? Big pharma, big tech, big agra, big oil, etc. Mocking pizza gate and the anti-vaxxer movement is just arrogant and insulting of the viewer's intelligence and this kind of attitude is what pushes corporate media over the line of what is considered fair-and-balanced reporting into agenda-driven sensationalism in which events become detached from the reality in which they occur and are given a new context with which to suit a narrative. I don't think the idea of children being harmed is funny, Tame. Censorship by other means. The media shouldn't take it upon itself to have the final say as to how information is to be interpreted by the public, such is the "fiction" of Orwell. Distrust, disbelief, and doubt will always be felt whether by instinct or by plain incredulity and in varying degrees and that is normal, but propaganda gets its authority by being convinced of its own authority.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They don't care about the life of Christ. They don't care about Christ at all. All of the facts mean nothing and any evidence of Christ as the Messiah means nothing to these people. It says in the New Testament in John 10 that when they picked up stones to throw at the Messiah, the Messiah asked them on what grounds they wished to stone him. They replied that they didn't care for all the good works He had done, all they cared about was that Christ was a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of the Living God. They rejected Christ as the Messiah because they desired to continue living in sin. Christ rebuked their hypocrisy in knowing the law but not obeying it as they committed all kinds of wickedness in their personal lives. This goes all the way back to the Old Testament when they rejected God in favour of a king and this was after they had Moses to lead them through the desert, provided manna, drew water from a rock, gave them laws on stone, parted the Red sea, provided a bronze serpent to heal them, and so on. Christ healed the lame and the blind and performed incredible miracles as the Father had done, even right in the eyes of those Pharisees and they still didn't believe who the Son was and even blasphemed God by claiming Christ to be posessed by demons. Christ healed the servant of a Roman officer in Capernaum and the officer was grateful. Christ reluctantly, but to glorify the Father, turned water in wine at a wedding in Cana and the host was surprised at the reversal of the tradition of serving the best wine first, and when people are too drunk to notice, to serve cheap wine. Miracle after miracle performed by Christ in their very sight and they still rejected God. When Jesus was crucified and was resurrected, even those who witnessed this were threatened by the Pharisees not to spread this news. No wonder God refers to these people as stiff-necked.
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
-
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
-
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
-
The level of decision making in terms of what constitutes hate speech or free speech has shifted from the public arena to big tech. Now any opinion or view that is contrary to the dogma of the msm and big tech is deplatformed or censored e.g. Alex Jones and Infowars. Without any kind of dialogue with the public, the more the determining of what exactly constitutes hate speech and free speech becomes arbitrary in favour of the msm and big tech. In this gap between the public and big tech is the contested ground between those who have the monopoly of information and those who are voiceless; and those with the money and the means to propagate their dogma will always win. Thus what big tech and politicians decide as being hate speech is entirely different from what the public understands hate speech to be. Consequently, the problem is that the more "hate speech" becomes regulated and scrutinised, the less hateful "hate speech" actually becomes e.g. "I'm uncomfortable with drag queens reading books to children in public libraries about how Timmy has two dads," that kind of stuff. However at the same time, the language becomes more obfuscated, vague, empty, and meaningless that the process of locating exactly where free speech ends and hate speech begins is just as obfuscated, vague, empty, and meaningless that the only solution to get around this problem is to turn New Zealand into a nationwide prison.
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
-
3
-
Faafoi is finding himself overwhelmed. That's understandable because it shows how neglected the public broadcasting sector is under the last government compared with the private sector. National shut down TVNZ 6 and 7 and this reflects the National party's attitude towards democracy, the public, and New Zealand as a nation. The fact that New Zealand culture does not have much presence in the media is symptomatic of the globalist framework of the previous government. National refused to accomodate local players in the sector (Sommet Sports, Stratos Television) in favour multinational corporate television networks (Bravo). However, this is not about what people watch or how they watch certain media content, but the ideas and impressions formed by that content. Thus public broadcasting no longer has the monopoly of public opinion which is now held by private corporate media which Faafoi concedes. However, I sense that Faafoi wants to empower the people within a corporate environment by refocussing state assets in order to make the public actual participants in the media to reflect their own lives in search or a genuine existence and not as bystanders passively accepting the big tech, big media, PSYWAR/ MINDWAR brainwashing. Corporate broadcasters have access to money, technology, brand trust that state broadcaster doesn't usually have. New Zealand's sovereignty is being dissolved slowly from the inside. Why does Dann criticise the lack of regulation of the insurance industry and then criticise Faafoi for having to seek Winston's approval? That is how MMP works, Dann. What is this nonsense of Winston having gone rogue? If anything, Shipley went rogue on Winston AND democracy. The three parties in the coalition keep each other in check which is a far better than one party calling all the shots without public consultation.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The point is to understand how men are perceived by women. Feminism has provided women with a kind of public relations service through which women are told that they can do anything. At the same time, men are seen as holding women back also known as the patriarchy even though there are more women occupying CEO, managerial, and even parliamentary positions. There's a reason for this and that is because feminism cannot exist on its own or else it wouldn't achieve anything. The slogan "The Future is Female" as a statement of the Hegelian dialectic of historical progress of gender illustrates how necessary feminism relies on hostility towards men which is why women enjoy certain freedoms, e.g. women avoiding serious jail terms. That's why "rape culture" and the "rape stare" exist, because feminism cannot succeed without males as enemies. This is nothing personal to men, because feminism only works as a MOVEMENT. Feminism's progress depends on antagonism which is why equality is impossible because the very movement IS HOSTILE that anything which seems neutral will be forced to take either the side of feminists or the patriarchy e.g. "male feminists". Then there are women who reject feminism. ALL women are feminists. Sure feminism can exist in the abstract sense, but they don't want equality. They want to smash the glass ceiling which is a nice, obvious symbol of the ILLUSION of their personal flaws and imperfections only to CONTINUE their demand for more rights and freedoms which the state happily complies in order to get more votes. There will NEVER be a moment in time when feminists declare their purpose fulfilled because it is a self-serving system for professional women only. The typical female contract cleaner or nurse is ignored. Now feminism does have a legitimate cause, which is to empower women, not to compete with men, but to fully develop their abilities, potential, and self-worth as women. But this has been corrupted by female bureaucrats who form this particular panel, and globalist bankers. Without hostility towards men, feminism drifts towards self-parody by trying to appear intellectual with such terms as "intersectionality" etc.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The government has to allocate money for services and policies according to what is budgeted. Thus the government determines the acceptable number of people who will receive the benefit, the number of people who will receive certain kinds of medical treatment funded by the state, and in this case the number of prisoners in the prison system. Now, the money spent by the government is actually comes with a guarantee to each ministry or agency to pay the government back with, hopefully, good financial returns. Like the education sector Trashnal privatised prisons, and with the distancing of the police from society, prisoners on being released were simply left to reoffend as shown by the high reoffending rates. A few years ago the city in which I live only had TWO on duty police officers for a night shift. Society was made to fend for itself while the police were reorganised to protect private property from striking fast food workers. Now Little is trying to make the system more efficient by identifying contributing factors of crime and weeding out the career criminals from those who perhaps acted out of desperation while Dann at 5:10 is trying play on the public's fear in order to criticise Little's plans at 7:19. Crime is used by Trashnal, as in the past, to make the people afraid and the violent crimes that occur are used by Trashnal to justify a zero tolerance approach to law and order. Problem + Reaction = Solution. At 7:37 Dann tries to overwhelm Little by using fear in order to make Little appear more sympathetic to criminals and not victims. However, Little is trying to get across to Dann that those who commit crimes are just as much a victim of violence as their actual victims are.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1