Entry 2258, on 2023-02-04 at 13:20:09 (Rating 4, Politics)
Best news ever: the evil tyrant, Jacinda Ardern, is no longer prime minister of New Zealand. Of course, the Labour party, the left in general, and most of the media, are spinning it with some utter nonsense to try to gain some political capital out of this sudden fall from grace. Just 2 years ago, Ardern was by far the most popular "leader" in recent times, and the Labour Party was the only one to ever have been able to govern alone since we introduced our current proportional electoral system, but not any more.
So what has happened since then? What has caused such a catastrophic (from the left's perspective) reversal of fortune? In just two years the Labour Party has fallen to almost half its peak support and even "Saint Cindy" no longer has the widespread approval she used to enjoy.
I would say we lacked a disaster, because Ardern was a very "emotionally intelligent" leader, who thrived by handling difficult and disastrous events. Before I go further, I should say that I reject the concept of "emotional intelligence" because it denigrates real intelligence. Intelligence is an ability to reason, but emotion is the opposite of that. Of course, emotion can be important, and Ardern showed that extremely well. What made her popular? Her handling of events which required no real thought or action but did require "making the right noises" and "having the right imagery".
So the Christchurch shooting, the White Island disaster, and COVID were terrible for most of us, but great for her popularity, because it gave her the chance to practice that impressive ability to portray the right emotional response. Whether she was really that in touch with Muslims after the shooting is highly doubtful, but whether she faked it or it was genuine doesn't really matter, because it was effective.
But after the COVID situation improved, she ran out of disasters to manage. Actually, more to the point we got sick of COVID and moved on, because if you remember the response after the first COVID death and compare it to now, where many deaths per week are ignored, you can see your response was nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with spin.
Of course, there are real disasters still, such as inflation, homelessness, and deep divisions in society, but they are the types of disasters Ardern was better at making worse rather than better, because they required actual intelligence and some genuine skill. Just before I continue, I know that you can warp the stats both ways to show things are either improving or getting worse since Labour took power, but I will just say that, at best, no outstanding level of success has been achieved.
When Ardern announced her retirement as PM, and eventually from politics, she said it was because she just lacked the energy to continue, but not many people really believed this. The two other theories currently popular are that either she left because either she or her colleagues in Labour could see disaster looming and needed a change of leader, or because she was mercilessly hounded by trolls and misogynists on-line in a totally unfair way, and in a way which no male politician would even need to endure.
The second theory has become popular in the media, not because there is any great amount of evidence supporting it, but because it fits their twisted left-leaning narrative and it turns Jacinda into a victim, and as we know, being a victim is the greatest achievement you can have today, at least according to some!
I spend a lot of time on-line, including on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and a good fraction of that time I spend "discussing" politics. Note that I put discussing in quotes there, because while I try (not always successfully) to maintain a level of rationality and decorum, many of my opponents don't. During those debates I saw a lot of criticism of Ardern, but I never saw anything I thought was dangerous, or where a very similar criticism or insult could not have been aimed at any other controversial public figure. I know that's just an anecdote, but I only present it as such.
When debating the subject of the anti-Ardern trolls I often get criticised for supporting or excusing the vicious comments against her, but in every case, when I challenged my opponent for an example, I got nothing. I discussed this in another post a week or two back, and since then nothing has changed. There's still a conspicuous lack of detail regarding this claim.
I'm fairly sure that if I did some research I could find some nasty stuff that I would disagree with, but my opponents couldn't even be bothered doing that. They just seem to think that repeating a catch-phrase, like "Ardern was pushed out of politics by misogynistic trolls", without actually checking to see if it is true or not, is OK. It's kind of pathetic, and makes me wonder whether my opponents in debate are really worthy of my attention!
But let's put all that aside, because now I want to introduce a conspiracy theory! Yes, I love conspiracies, and as long as you don't take them too seriously, they are fun. Additionally, some conspiracies turn out to be true. If this one becomes true I claim credit for it, but if it doesn't, it's just a joke, OK?
My theory is that Ardern will be offered a job, probably at the UN, which involves fighting on-line "disinformation" and "hate speech". It's the sort of absurd, dishonest, and dangerous nonsense she excels at, and she has already indicated her willingness to deprive us of our rights to free speech on many occasions.
Now, if you wanted to gain public approval for a move like that, what could be better than the person taking the job to be the victim of the exact misinformation and abuse she is trying to eradicate?
The mainstream media will be on board, of course, because first, they are supportive of far left imposed restrictions on speech; second, would gain from alternative media, which are more likely to present non-mainstream views, being persecuted; and third, they are under the control of the government to some extent because of their left-wing bias and because of the handouts they get as long as they support certain government policies.
I think this conspiracy is at least as good as many others I have come across, and I will consider it true if Ardern is in a job similar to the one I have described in the near future, say by the end of they year. So, unlike other conspiracies, this one can be disproved. I must work on that; my conspiracy creating skills must need some fine tuning!
What do you mean this is a conspiracy. Of course its true. Got any better conspiracies you want to tell us about?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2023-02-06 at 22:20:53:
No, not for now. Let's see how this one turns out, and if it's true, I'll see what else I can think of then. I have plenty of ideas. Remember, many conspiracies are real!
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2023-02-07 at 12:06:51:
I reject the concept of "emotional intelligence" because it denigrates real intelligence. Why does it denigrate "real" intelligence? Can't both co-exist?
Comment 4 by Anonymous on 2023-02-07 at 12:09:35:
Hmmm.. Her handling of events which required no real thought or action but did require "making the right noises". Covid required no plan or action? Really.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2023-02-07 at 12:11:48:
In reply to comment 3: Sure, they can both exist, but its the wording I object to. According to OED: "intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". What does that have to do with emotion? Emotion is fine, but acknowledge it for what it is, which is very little to do with intelligence.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2023-02-07 at 12:17:52:
In reply to comment 4: Yeah, sure, COVID required something, in Ardern's case copying some of the worst possible features of what everyone else had already done (maybe a touch of political rhetoric in that comment!). But that wasn't really an individual reaction, like the Christchurch shooting or White Island, it was a government wide issue, where presumably more rational people made most of the decisions. I think they were the wrong decisions, but I can also see a case to say they weren't.
Comment 7 by Anonymous on 2023-02-07 at 16:21:04:
That's one very narrow definition of intelligence you have... intelligence is multi-factorial. The ability to observe, perceive, and empathise is, I would argue, a dimension of intelligence.
Comment 8 by Anonymous on 2023-02-07 at 16:23:37:
But that wasn't really an individual reaction.
Ahhh, how convenient for you to consider the response to COVID a "team effort", yet you nail her personally for other "team" responses. Smells like a convenient double standard. You've really gotta lose this chip on your shoulder about Adern and realise she is just another politician. Move on mate.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2023-02-07 at 16:38:35:
Re comment 7: Well, I gave you the definition from the dictionary. If we all just change the meaning of words to suit ourselves it's no wonder there are so many "vigorous debates" going on! Next thing, you'll be changing the definition of "woman" :)
Comment 10 by OJB on 2023-02-07 at 16:40:37:
Re comment 8: Surely you can see that the very personal and emotional reaction Ardern had to those two events was completely different from a wide ranging policy and widely supported reaction to COVID? Not the same at all. BTW, I'm skeptical of the COVID reaction as well.
Comment 11 by Anonymous on 2023-02-07 at 17:54:09:
But surely you can see that you were the one that grouped all of these responses together...
Comment 12 by OJB on 2023-02-07 at 18:57:06:
Yes, fair enough, you do have a point there. I guess I should have separated the actual COVID response, which could be seen as a rational policy (although that is debatable) from the BS we got from her from the "podium of truth" which was the propaganda part of the response.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE