Opinion Partnership – negative campaigning isn’t necessarily ‘dirty politics’

Chris Trotter goes too far portraying a “negative advertising campaign” as dirt and propaganda. If negative campaigning follows election  rules then it is ‘clean’, it just may not be to everyone’s liking.

From DIRT ALERT! – Are The Greens And Labour About To Become The Targets Of A Major Negative Advertising Campaign?

WE’VE SEEN IT ALL BEFORE. In 2005 pamphlets began appearing all over New Zealand attacking Labour and the Greens. For a couple of days both the parties targeted and the news media were flummoxed. Who was behind such an obviously extensive and costly campaign? No one knew – until former members of the Exclusive Brethren Church recognised some of the names of the pamphlets’ authorising agents and put two and two together.

The exposure of the Exclusive Brethren Church’s role in printing and distributing the pamphlets, followed by the shock revelation that the National Party leader, Dr Don Brash, had been made aware that such campaign was in the offing, contributed significantly to National’s 2005 election defeat.

Could history be repeating itself?

History could be sort of repeating itself but not as Trotter thought. As it turns out it’s nothing like the Exclusive Brethren secret campaign in 2005.

Yesterday evening (Thursday, 28 August 2014) I received an e-mail from a sender styling himself “Charlie Taylor” advising me that “a group of concerned citizens just like you are paying for billboards like this”.

Exactly who “Charlie Taylor” is I have no idea, but the lengthy e-mail send out in his name is clearly intended to inflict maximum damage on both the Greens and, by association, Labour.

Trotter initially concludes:

In the wake of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, I do not imagine that the National Party will relish answering questions about the provenance of yet another example of, well, dirty politics. And if, as happened in 2005, incontrovertible evidence emerges that John Key or his party were forewarned of these “Concerned Kiwis’” campaigning intentions, then National’s chances of holding onto power will take yet another hit.

I don’t see where ‘dirty politics’ comes into this as long as any campaign advertising complies with election rules.

Was Labour forewarned about Dirty Politics? About teacher campaign protests? Was the Green Party forewarned about anti-poverty campaigning? Does it matter?

None of those seem like dirty politics, just part of modern interest group campaigning.

An update from Trotter:

Whatever the explanation, we now know that the campaign is real, and that it is being run under the collective identity of “The Opinion Partnership” among whose members are Mr Third and Owen Jennings – former head of Federated Farmers, former Act Party MP (1996-2002) and currently the joint owner (with Mr Third) of the registered private company Ideal Energy Holdings Ltd.

We await further developments.

* I have since spoken to Mr Third who confirmed to me that he and Owen Jennings are, indeed, among the persons calling themselves “The Opinion Partnership”.

A further update from Trotter:

Propaganda supremo, John Ansell, confirms his involvement in The Opinion Partnership.

Propaganda supremo? That’s a loaded comment.
Ansell responds to Trotter:

A big, bold campaign is required and justified to counterbalance the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising being provided by the media to Nicky Hager’s attempt to gull the gullible into believing that the right play dirtier than the left.

As someone who has been involved in three ad campaigns for Labour, one for National and two for ACT, as you know, compared with Labour (they who stole the 2005 election then retrospectively legislated their theft), National are the gentlemen of the political spectrum – they just don’t have a Dotcom hacking their every conversation or a Hager receiving the stolen property and writing shock, horror stories about them.

And no, the Labour means Greens campaign is not being done for National or any other party.

I, for one, am disillusioned by all the right wing offerings at the moment. I left Key’s office when it became obvious to me that his motivation was self and party before country. I left ACT twice because they refused to grasp the nettles necessary for victory. And I don’t like the Conservatives’ intolerance of gays and such (though I do like Craig’s policy of a binding referendum on race-based seats).

So I don’t know who I’m going to vote for. But I shudder at the potential destructiveness of a Cunliffe cabinet that’s 30% Green.

And Owen Jennings distances the campaign from Federated Farmers.

Hi Chris and company,

Owen Jennings here. Federated Farmers are not involved in this ‘Labour means Greens’ campaign in any way at all. It is 20 years since I was involved there. I am no longer a member as I am not farming.

I am part of a group concerned that Labour is going to have to concede senior Cabinet positions and key policy positions to a group who are extreme socialists and we would like voters to understand that.

The media are able to point out, very rightly the strong positions held by National’s possible partners. We are simply helping the media do their job. Currently they are tied up with stuff that most of think is boring and dated. We enjoy the contest of ideas and dont enjoy slagging off individuals in a vitriolic way.

We hope to stimulate debate and have voters recognise that Green politics are not as pleasant and innocent as they are mostly made out to be.

If Colin Craig and Kim Dotcom and various poverty groups and “get out the vote” groups and teacher organisations and Unions etc etc can promote their election preferences then this doesn’t seem out of the ordinary.

The right to free speech in an election campaign isn’t dirt.

John Ansell launching ‘Colourblind’

Quoted in full except for donation requests. This is not an endorsement, it is reporting. I have mixed views on what Ansell says. When Ansell publicised his “30 statements of irrefutable truth” I contested some of them. I am dubious about some claims here. PG.

Hello fellow Kiwis,

I’m sending this email to a few hundred New Zealanders, both great and potentially great.

My hope is that you’ll support what I intend to be a major campaign to create a Colourblind State – a New Zealand where every citizen has equal rights, lives under the one law, votes on the one electoral roll, and whose taxes are spent by the state according to need, not race.

If you happen to be in Auckland this coming Monday evening, I’ll be speaking publicly about my plans for the first time to the Remuera Rotary Club.

You’re invited, along with anyone you know who might be interested. (See below for details.)

Why Doesn’t Key
Share King’s Dream?

Dr Martin Luther King had a dream of a country whose children were judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin.

Do you agree with him? So do I.

But by his measure, our own country has some way to go.

I know this from personal experience.

For daring to share Dr King’s vision of racial equality, the media call me a “controversial race relations campaigner”, the advertising “guru” who did the “notorious” Iwi/Kiwi billboard.

The Dominion Post even banned my ACT ad which asked whether you’re “Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?” – backed up with 30 statements of irrefutable truth.

What Kind Of
Democracy Is This?

Is that the sign of a fair, open democracy?

Is criticism really the same thing as racism?

Are you as alarmed as I am about our weak prime minister’s never-ending appeasement of Griever Maori (Griever as distinct from Achiever Maori, who I admire)?

If you’re an Achiever Maori (by which I simply mean someone who’s making a go of life under your own steam), are you ashamed of the boorish gang of overgrown teenage thugs and extortionists who claim to speak for you?

In that case, my campaign is for you too.

In every poll taken (including recent local body referendum results on Maori Wards in Nelson and Waikato), about 80% of New Zealanders oppose racial favouritism.

What about that does John Key not understand?

The Big Lie

Have you ever noticed that a lot of things in life turn out to be exactly opposite of the way they seem?

I’ve noticed this during the past year, which I’ve spent doing little else but studying our Treaty history. (With the help of nine authors of over 30 books on the subject.)

Like you, I think I’m a fair person. I don’t support endless payments to the diluted descendants of nineteenth century tribespeople.

But I do believe in doing the right thing.

If people are suffering because they’ve been grievously wronged, then they deserve compensation for that suffering.

But shouldn’t the same principle also apply in reverse?

If a whole nation of people are suffering because they’ve been lied to – and stolen from – then shouldn’t the people who’ve been doing the lying and the stealing be held to account?

Because, believe me, the whole population of New Zealand has been lied to – and stolen from – over the Treaty.

Maori and non-Maori are being told things about our history which just didn’t happen.

Many of these errors are not just slightly at odds with the truth. They’re the polar opposite.

The authors of these lies are clearly using the techniques of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler said if you’re going to tell a lie, make it a whopper, because people only expect their leaders to tell little porkies – like the people do themselves.

TREATYGATE:
The Conning Of A Country

For 40 years, the state, a large number of its teachers and professors, and any number of Treaty Grievers, have been feeding us the line that our British pioneer forebears were a bunch of land-grabbing, money-grubbing crooks, bent on ripping off the poor innocent, gullible Maori.

And, being trusting types, we’ve swallowed it – hook, line and sinker.

(After all, our nice government wouldn’t lie to us, would they?)

Well, here’s a few things they didn’t tell you:

  • In 1840, those old chiefs were queuing up to take the Queen’s money for huge tracts of their land. Why? Because they had no use for it. Their tribes were tiny, and they knew nothing of farming or forestry. They just saw it as waste land, so why not swap it for something useful?
  •  In 1860, the largest-ever gathering of chiefs thanked the British for giving them law and order and property rights, for abolishing cannibalism and slavery, and for saving their people from extinction after a quarter century of intertribal genocide. (If only today’s Maori leaders were as grateful!)
  • As war loomed, the rebel tribes were warned that if they took up arms against the Queen, they’d have their lands taken and given to people who could be trusted to keep the peace.
  • All major Treaty claims were settled by 1947 – before the Pandora’s box was stupidly reopened in the 1970s.
  • Some claims have now been settled “fully and finally” four and five times – with no end in sight.
  • Hobson’s long-missing final Treaty draft was found in 1989, then hushed up by state academics. Why? Because that draft said the same things as the Maori Tiriti (the only treaty Hobson recognised). And both the draft and the Tiriti make it clear that the Treaty was with “all the people of New Zealand”, not just Maori. And neither makes any mention of Maori owning forests or fisheries.

 All The Elites Are
In On The Con

And who have been doing their best to keep all this information from you?

Why, only the political elite, the bureaucratic elite, the academic elite, the judicial elite, the legal elite, the religious elite, the media elite, and the iwi elite!

Yes, really.

In my mind, the Treatygate coverup deserves to be called an Orchestrated Litany of Lies.

See what you think when you’ve heard my evidence.

The Treatygaters’ End Game:
Hijack The Constitution

THIS MAY BE THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR LIFETIME: Did you know the National-Maori Party alliance is in the process of sneaking through a written constitution with the false version of the Treaty at its core?

Thought not. (Seems their ‘Constitutional Review’ is not quite the broad quest for public opinion that they promised.)

If we let them get away with it, it will spell the end of New Zealand as we know it.  Eighty-five percent of us will be officially second-class citizens.

That’s why we need to end the Treaty Grievance Industry ASAP.

There’s so much more to tell you.

Come And Hear My
Evidence – And Solutions

On Monday in Auckland, at the Remuera Rotary Club (which meets at the Remuera Bowling Club), I’ll be putting up my evidence against the Treatygate fraudsters.

More crucially, I’ll be putting up some solutions about how we can put an end to the Treatygate rort, and chart a more unified course.

Should we hijack the hijackers with a written constitution of our own?

Should we petition for a referendum to sweep away the whole Treaty gravy train once and for all?

Or should we start a one-off, one-term, totally incorruptible, single-issue political party to force the government to start running New Zealand as a democracy?

For now, I’m gathering ideas and funds for a major advertising campaign to tell the public the truth.

At the moment, this is all happening on my blog (see below), but an organisation will soon be forming with its own website.

My Goal:
A COLOURBLIND STATE

As I said, a Colourblind State is a New Zealand where every citizen has equal rights, lives under the one law, votes on the one electoral roll, and whose taxes are spent by the state according to need, not race.

I think Dr King would approve of this goal, don’t you?

It calls for a vibrant, multicultural New Zealand, free of state favouritism, racial or otherwise.

Is that want you want too?

Then I’d love to see you at the next Remuera Rotary Club meeting this coming Monday at the Remuera Bowling Club.

You can either come for dinner, or just for the speech.

Host:                                     Remuera Rotary Club

Place:                                    Remuera Bowling Club, Dromorne Road (100m down on right from Market Rd).

Speech time:                     6.30 for 6.40pm start. Finishes 7.10pm.

Dinner option:                  5.30 for 6.00pm if you want to join the Rotarians for a buffet dinner.

Dinner ticket:                    $30. Book a ticket with colinrwilson@xtra.co.nz, stating your name and address.

(If you’re not from Auckland, I hope to see you at a similar event in your region before too long.)

Feel free to email me with your feedback.

Thanks for reading. Hope to see you on Monday.

John Ansell

Lots more Treatygate background here: www.johnansell.wordpress.com.

Try this for starters: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/treatygate-time-to-expose-the-con/(640+ comments so far. Why not add yours?)

Ansell trying to open ‘Treatygate’

‘Critic’ has an article on John Ansell launching a ‘Colourblind’ campaign to address what he calls ‘Treatygate’.

Treatygate” is the “attack brand”, and will involve a series of brief, hard-hitting advertisements designed to incite “anger” in “hothead” voters. Treatygate aims to “expose the 40 year state brainwashing campaign that has distorted the history of Crown-Maori relations”.

Speaking to Critic, John Ansell, the advertising guru behind the campaign, described the planned advertisements for Treatygate as “short sharp little messages with one piece of evidence in each one”, such as that “Maori companies pay 17.5% tax, [while] others pay 28%.”

According to Ansell the primary goal of the Treatygate campaign is to “expose the bias and enrage the public”. “You have to make the public mad… otherwise we’re the passionless people, we won’t rouse ourselves to oppose the politicians unless [the public] have the information.”

After the public have been fired up by the Treatygate campaign, “Colourblind State” aims to harness this anger to get 80% or more of the public to vote in favour of a referendum question along the lines of “Should New Zealand be a colourblind state, with no race-based political representation, policies, or funding?”. Ansell intends to submit his referendum question by the end of August, which will give Parliament three months to approve it. After that, Ansell and his fellow campaigners will have one year to gather the more than 300,000 signatures required to trigger a citizens initiated referendum.

Ansell has done radical before, noteably last year when he overegged a racially charged advertising campaign started by Act. But Critic is a student paper, is this a serious exposé?

Ansell’s blog confirms that it is.

TREATYGATE — Time to Expose the Con

It explains the double-pronged campaign I’m planning to end the Treaty Grievance Industry.

But What Can We Do?

It will take money, but I believe the secret of success is a powerful public education campaign using the plainest of English, rolling out one fascinating fact, one ad or poster at a time.

The goal is to get sheepish Kiwis, ‘the Passionless People’, to understand what has been done to them, and to tell their politicians, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!”

If we can make Treatygate a Top Three issue when the big parties do their polling, then our leaders will have no choice but to listen and act.

Here’s the plan…

How to Defeat the Con

  1. Launch Colourblind New Zealand, and set a goal to lock in one law for all by December 2014.
  2. Raise a $2 million fighting fund so the politicians know we’re able to embarrass them.
  3. Petition for a referendum at the 2014 election. Question: “Do you want New Zealand to be a Colourblind State, with one law for all, and no racial favouritism of any kind?”
  4. How to make the PM obey the referendum result? Run lots of bold Treatygate ads telling voters just who has been conning them, and how.
  5. If media refuse to run these ads, use rival media to expose them as part of the con.
  6. Bombard government MPs with instructions from their voters to obey their will.
  7. Support local body campaigns on Maori wards (typically attracting an 80% NO vote).

With your support I hope to work full-time on this project until we achieve a Colourblind New Zealand.

The racially-rigged Constitutional Advisory Panel has already begun the process of changing the constitution by stealth, meeting mainly with Maori groups in contravention of its pledge to meet a wide range of New Zealanders.

So there’s not a moment to lose.

Because truth does matter.

(I don’t support Ansell’s proposed campaign, I’m reporting on it).

Act – chick magnet and brown brothers?

Bring on the naivety?

Bring on the girls… Brash acts to fight white blokes image (Herald)

Act leader Don Brash says the party needs more young women and brown faces as candidates to more broadly represent New Zealand society at the election

Maybe he should ask John Ansell to run an advertiseing campaign that appeals to “young women and brown faces”.

It’s worth repeating the Ansell/Act attempts to attract voters in the weekend, in print:

In short, [ACT’s] catchment is men and women who think like men. Not men and women who think like women. ACT is the party of the strong father, not the soft mother.

(By strong father I include strong women like Rand, Richardson and Thatcher, and by soft mother I include weak men like Key.)

And on blogs:

The women who support ACT are not squeamish about speaking bluntly about rational issues (including racial issues). I respect them very much.

In short, they’ve got guts.

More typical women are less rational and more emotional. They’d rather preserve relationships than rock the boat. Is that not true?

If it were not for the female vote, Don Brash would have become prime minister in 2005 and we’d be a much more prosperous country today.

But women, by a reasonable margin, preferred to cuddle the various minority groups and spend more of other people’s money on welfare that to take the hard economic decisions. These ‘soft mothers’ voted for short-term gain and long-term pain.

The ‘strong fathers’, also by a reasonable margin, voted for short-term pain and long-term gain. The rational (or should that be Brashional) approach.

Now of course I’ll be branded misogynist as well as racist. But again, I’m just pointing out the simple truth.

The soft mother model doesn’t seem to be universal. In Britain, women ‘got’ Margaret Thatcher’s bold approach (a woman who thought like a man if ever there was one).

But in New Zealand, when it comes to strong policies that actually allow the country to move forward, the girls let the side down. Three terms of Clarxism was not a rational answer to any rational question.

New Zealand is awash with parties that represent the female view of the world: Labour, the Greens, the latter-day Nats.

But only ACT represents rational women and rational men. The party should not be ashamed to say so.

And that’s just the chick magnet, Ansell’s and Brash’s “brown face” attraction has been widely covered, since about 2004.

So chicks, if you have guts (not a Mackers mound), you’re not the “typical less rational and more emotional” sort of girl, you’re not into “cuddling minority groups”, and you can get on with a dysfunctional of old white men then give Don your number.

And if you have a brown face and are happy to ignore the Brash race brown arming you could be just the sort of broad representation he’s after.

Act doesn’t broadly represent white New Zealand men, let alone all of New Zealand society. Brash has shown his tactics are those of a divider, he just hasn’t manged the conquer bit yet and it’s not looking likely he ever will, especially if continues to look this out of touch with the real world, and out of touch with most New Zealanders.

Women and Act

How well does the Act Party represent women? Is it mostly a party of dis-empowered and frustrated old men?

If you don’t support Act are you a cowardly irrational gutless soft mother lover?

In his latest outbursts John Ansell has been blunt about his views on Act and women.

In short, [ACT’s] catchment is men and women who think like men. Not men and women who think like women. ACT is the party of the strong father, not the soft mother.

(By strong father I include strong women like Rand, Richardson and Thatcher, and by soft mother I include weak men like Key.)

Maybe that’s why Rodney Hide had to be rolled, he pandered to “soft mothers” with his dancing and re-marriage and triping around the world with his partner.

Ansell continues to reveal his  gender views on Kiwiblog.

The women who support ACT are not squeamish about speaking bluntly about rational issues (including racial issues). I respect them very much.

In short, they’ve got guts.

More typical women are less rational and more emotional. They’d rather preserve relationships than rock the boat. Is that not true?

If it were not for the female vote, Don Brash would have become prime minister in 2005 and we’d be a much more prosperous country today.

But women, by a reasonable margin, preferred to cuddle the various minority groups and spend more of other people’s money on welfare that to take the hard economic decisions. These ‘soft mothers’ voted for short-term gain and long-term pain.

The ‘strong fathers’, also by a reasonable margin, voted for short-term pain and long-term gain. The rational (or should that be Brashional) approach.

Now of course I’ll be branded misogynist as well as racist. But again, I’m just pointing out the simple truth.

The soft mother model doesn’t seem to be universal. In Britain, women ‘got’ Margaret Thatcher’s bold approach (a woman who thought like a man if ever there was one).

But in New Zealand, when it comes to strong policies that actually allow the country to move forward, the girls let the side down. Three terms of Clarxism was not a rational answer to any rational question.

New Zealand is awash with parties that represent the female view of the world: Labour, the Greens, the latter-day Nats.

But only ACT represents rational women and rational men. The party should not be ashamed to say so.

So the 98.3% of people that don’t currently support Act (and the TV3 poll won’t have been influenced by the Acting out over the weekend) are, according to Ansell:

  • Cowards
  • Soft mothers
  • Irrational
  • Gutless

Effectively Ansell is saying that Act represents REAL MEN and everyone else are sissies, and worse.

How much of this is an Ansell only view?
What is the wider Act view on women (and sissy men)?
What are Don Brash’s views on women?

Or does any of this matter now?