"We felt this way", Nixon said, "because the people on the other side were hypocritical, they were sanctimonious and they were not serving the best interests of the country. " Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 1977 (click)

Earlier this year, in discussion with Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate) about certain RWNJ’s affecting to foam with outrage (see Wailing about death threats, forgetting what they’ve written themselves) I noted National Party hate blogger Cameron Slater’s marked tendency to spit insults at those who disagree with him rather than make the effort to mount an argument.

As for [alleged] ‘weird obsessions’, yeah, that’s how Cameron tries to frame my criticism. Yawn. (At least he doesn’t call me a “sanctimonious unctuous twat” or “lefty c**t” as he described law professor Andrew Geddis following a reasoned critique of Cam’s name suppression criminality, see: Cameron Slater’s slightly wonky jihad.)

Well, just to keep you up to date, that’s changed. (The ‘twat’ part.)

Cameron cited comments of mine from this blog (supportively) in his blog post Paepae on the hypocrisy of the Standard [take a breath!] but then, in reply to comments, declared that I, Peter, am (according to him):

… a finger pointing sanctimonious twat …

So much for that! Boo hoo. Cheers Andrew.
Nice to know Cameron still reads this blog. (And vice versa, sure, when I get time. See below.)

The idea that ‘the other side’ are hypocritical and sanctimonious — and that such a conclusion justifies Nixonian ‘dirty tricks’ — is not foreign to National Party hate blogger Cameron Slater. I mentioned it last year in a post Be careful what you believe …

It seems to me from what Cameron and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and bloggers/activists/schemers like him (and only a handful of others – in NZ anyway) have convinced themselves that their Left Wing ‘opponents’ are waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and will stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. So strongly do they, as a group, hold this belief that they (the Right-wing cabal) feel they are therefore completely justified in waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and to stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. I bet some on ‘the Left’ think exactly the same way. (Trevor Mallard, I’m looking at you. And you Martyn Bradbury.)

'Keeping the buggers honest.' With bonus 'dirty and illegal tactics'. (pic: Cameron Slater)

Cameron himself, in paying tribute recently to a National Party bovver boy who’s made zero impact on my consciousness, demonstrated the same mental-ethical blind spot I’ve referred to before when considering dishonest political bullies like Cameron Slater…

Scott is the one National MP capable of the kind of low bastardry that Russel Norman shows, and is well practiced at the dark arts. He taught me huge amounts about meeting Labour’s dirty and illegal tactics with our own dirty and illegal tactics, and I will always remember the 1987 Eden campaign as a highlight where he helped me grow up and understand how brutal politics really is.

Everyone knows cabinet doesn’t trust Scott but that shouldn’t matter. Low bastardry should be prized, not spurned, and Scott should be asked to run the attacks on Labour as he is a genius at negative campaigning.

What a reptilian view of political contests this son of a former National Party president seems to demonstrate. Unthinking, reflexive hatreds. Where can he have  learned it?

From where I sit, Cameron continues to evince no vision beyond instinctual combat with those he imagines are his enemies.

– P

You may also be interested in reading: In praise of Cameron Slater (yeah, I’m surprised too)