The Morning I Woke Up and it Was 1942 AGAIN!

My story is not about the GCSB, this simply motivated me into writing. The mechanisms being used here to gain peoples ‘buy in’ (being untruths) clearly work, but is this the best way forward? Who is protected? I wrote regarding the GCSB not only because it is topical, but because I think it is potentially dangerous, and I’m not just referring to the ‘tidying up of the legislation’. Most people regard democracy as the best structure delivering freedom of thought, choice, speech, providing all with the opportunity to follow their own dreams, goals, within the bounds of the law of course. That same democratic structure or system requires checks and balances to protect the system itself because we are all Humans. Protecting the system allows it to continue to deliver those lofty Human ideals most believe to be their right. Most but not all that is, some people believe however they a better than others and perhaps the ‘Mass’ have more rights than they deserve or should have. This would never be explicitly stated of course (as with all hidden agendas) for people would recognize it for what it is. They would reject it outright. Accordingly these people opt for a more subtle approach they know works, they seek to create an illusion, a plausible untruth, repeated over and over until people ‘buy it’, they might use fear (which is a self generative emotion) as a mechanism, division is yet another. Another tactic often employed is a deliberate lack of information or misinformation, they attempt to hide the overall picture from us, each piece of legislation designed to erode your rights when considered in isolation is far more palatable, or less objectionable, in reality though it’s just another pernicious untruth. They seek and most often succeed in gaining your willing consent for their hidden agenda, in this case eroding our democracy is that pernicious agenda. These methods today are used extensively against the public, to influence and coerce us, in the pursuit of others ‘ideals’ being placed upon us, often to our own detriment.

Democracy also offers, although unstated something more intangible and vital. It allows the opportunity for higher thinking. It is generally accepted that democracy (a functional one) improves people’s standard of living, meets people’s basic needs of shelter, food, security, freedom, protection, leisure, affection, and understanding. It is not possible to achieve any higher thinking unless these basic needs are met first.

An example to highlight the dichotomy between democracy and a totalitarian State consider Germany during the Second World War. Regardless of what side of the fence you found yourself clearly no one was engaging in any higher thinking. On one side of the fence all basic rights were deliberately absent, when your very existence is focused on survival there will be little time or inclination for any higher thinking. On the other side of the fence even though all basic needs were being met there was no evidence of any higher thinking either, because the totalitarian State always opposes discerning judgement.

Higher thinking is only ever possible for the masses in a functioning democracy, after all their basic needs have been met.

There are many shades of grey between these two extremes, shades of democracy opposed to shades of totalitarianism. Which provides the best outcome for us?

GCSB, SIS, there is no record over their entire history of a successful prosecution resulting from criminal behavior (terrorist or otherwise) first detected by GCSB or SIS spying. Terrorists, please?

In 2008 PM John key ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council. Clearly this is a lowering of the bar in any individuals’ ability to seek legal redress should our Courts get it wrong. Does this ever happen?

Economic Development Minister S Joyce in a ‘back room deal’ with Shell Oil companies on 04 September 2012 along with further meetings between Simon Bridges and Shell Oil on February 14 this year (two weeks prior to him taking the paper to Cabinet) designed to curtail protests at sea.

The Law change in July this year banned any protesters from demonstrating within 500 metres of ships or oil platforms within NZ 500 km exclusive economic zone.

Penalties for protesting carry a fine up to $100,000 and a year in prison.

Clearly Shell oil wrote this piece of legislation.

There was no public consultation. Perhaps Shell Oil should cut out the middle man and simply have their own Political Party; at least we would get a vote then. Hidden agendas obviously work better.

On the 14 July this year Vince Siemer was imprisoned, believed to be the first person in the free world to be sentenced to prison for reporting a Criminal Court judgement.

Siemer was imprisoned because he disobeyed an UNLAWFUL order and was further denied the lawful right to challenge it in order to preserve his liberty.

The NZDF considering that journalists be in same category as terrorists.

“New Zealand is a prime model for what happens when a well-meaning public turn a blind eye to corruption and there is no such thing as investigative journalism."

Clearly though this is only part of the problem and we need to be far more proactive in pushing back against these attacks on our democracy, seeing through the manufactured illusion, misinformation.

We need to have confidence that all the checks and balances are reinstated because the attack is very real.

David Croucher

ENDS

© Scoop Media