National-ACT supporters – not the brightest lights in the night sky, eh?





Reading some comments on the Campbell Live Facebook page, soon after the investigative story on the  GCSB was aired on 20 May, I was struck by the sheer lack of informed comment by some right-wing Facebook users. Take for example, this statement was a user identifying himself as “Jack Peters“;


Facebook user - Jack Peters


(Note: the profile appears to be fictitious and nothing more than a right-wing troll. According to his Profile, “Jack Peters” has ‘Liked” the Green Party, a somewhat clumsy attempt to smear the Greens by association with his blatant trolling.)

TDB Recommends

“Jack Peters” made a reference to the GCSB was created under Helen’s [Clark’s] watch“.

This reminded me immediately of a story back in 2012, which linked right-wing/conservative/racist beliefs with low intelligence;


Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study


Following up on this story last year, Goal Auzeen Saedi (Ph.D), wrote in Psychology Today,

Hodson and Busseri (2012) found in a correlational study that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. They also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.

What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it for the Huffington Post as follows, “ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”


Why do I raise this point?

Because right-wing troll “Jack Peters” slammed critics of the Key government by stating that the GCSB was created under Helen’s [Clark’s] watch.

In fact, the GCSB was created by then-National Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon, in 1977, as the GCSB itself pointed out on it’s own website,


history of the GCSB Government communications security bureau


Created by a National government.

Powers increased by a National government.

Misinformed beliefs from National supporters.

Who then vote in the next National Government.

That, people, is what is commonly known as a vicious circle.




To view the Campbell Live story on the GCSB and the murky goings-on behind the scenes, I present a link here (click on the image to take you to the TV3 website);


Campbell Live - GCSB - John Key


It is, quite simply, one of the best bits of investigative journalism this blogger has witnessed for some time. Campbell Live and Maori TV’s  Native Affairs are simply Must Watch tv.






Facebook: Campbell Live – Jack Peters

TV3: Key’s meeting with GCSB boss revealed

Facebook: “Jack Peters”

Daily Mail Online: Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

Psychology Today:  Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

Government Communications Security Bureau: History of the GCSB

TV3: Campbell Live – Key’s meeting with GCSB boss revealed

Previous related blogposts

The real reason for the GCSB Bill







Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes



= fs =


  1. Those blindly and faithfully following the misleading “head ram” to the slaughterhouse, and laughing loudly baa baa baa, have never struck me as the “brightest” of animals.

    The same applies to the nasty ones kicking and trampling on the weak ones not keeping up with the bullying, but they are an even more dangerous kind.

    Yes, what can we expect. People who have no imagination, who cannot add logically placed dots together, they will never solve any riddles, will not even have any idea, that there may be something to the clues.

    Mind you, the quality of the rest of the MSM and what we are served via television, radio and online does not enhance the learning of analytical, deep thinking and rational action.

    • Mind you, the quality of the rest of the MSM and what we are served via television, radio and online does not enhance the learning of analytical, deep thinking and rational action.

      Interesting you say that, Marc. I was chatting with some folk (non-political) about some issue or other, and the subject turned to popular culture and the MSM and how it seems fairly lame on many occassions.

      The discussion turned to the movie, Idiocracy and how “energy drinks” were so popular because they “contained electrolytes” – even though none of the dumbed-down citizens of the future actually understood what “electrolytes” were…

      (I think this vaguely links to the issue we’re discussing here…?)

      • It starts with the very young ones, who are already inundated with not only light hearted, silly stuff (in moderation perhaps appropriate for kids), but also targeted by advertisers.

        So associations between what they see and hear and products are created in the subconscious. The whole approach will also “shape” perception and the workings of their minds.

        Hence McDonalds have Ronald McDonald and their playgrounds, and giveaway toys, to “bond” the human child to the brand and food (rich in sugar, fat and flavour enhancers), so they get hooked, and come back as teens and adults, later to “hand over” their own offspring, to go through the same initiation rites.

        Other retailers and service providers do the same, in slightly different ways.

        That is what it is all about, and the same “light-heartedness” and lack of critical awareness, that is what we are sadly dealing with, in large portions of the population. It is bred into them, they are brainwashed from infantile ages, so they are not even aware of being conditioned almost like robots.

        And as politics is viewed not much different to a “product” people want to “use” or have some “advantage” from, they treat it the same way as any other offered and consumable product or service.

  2. One sometimes hears the term “trendy lefty intellectual (liberal)”, a derogatory term for a left-leaning liberal who happens to have a few brains. Why is there no right-wing equivalent term? Seems the answer lies in your article Frank. It doesn’t require many brains to be a greedy right-wing troll, but it does require a few brains to be a liberal.

    • Indeed.

      There is a tendency in this country to despise difficult thinking and those who do it – easier to admire glib talk and clever political manoeuvring, especially if it involves some lying. In fact, an obvious lie or two are needed for some people to respect a ‘skilful’ politician. If they can’t see him doing some clever lying, they see no political ability. Good politicians are meant to be good at this – it makes them good leaders!
      A bit like some people have to actually see the man slip on the banana-skin before they find him funny.

    • Such insufferable smugness only affects those on the left. This fact alone turns me off left wing ideologies

  3. Congrats on creating a strawman to successfully knock over and confirm your intellectual superiority in your own mind. It must rip your undies that the right can beat the left even though it doesn’t have the same level of collective smarts.

      • Why is the left not able to consistently defeat the right then considering the right is full of what you imply are Forest Gump clones whilst the left is the natural home of the creme de la creme of the intellectual elite?

        • Forrest Gump was versatile – the Gnats can do nothing without a foreign bankroll and an army of consultants – to do the thinking for them.

        • Why is the right not able to consistently defeat the left?

          The right seems to be for consolidation and status quo, leading to stagnation and entrenched ideas. As de Bono explained: “rigid categories and point-scoring arguments”. (‘I am right, you are wrong’)

          (Yes, I KNOW that’s where Labour was in the 1980s – copying daffy notions from overseas. And it’s where it is now. I grieve with you.)

          In fact, as Bertrand Russell put it: “Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do”. (Which partly explains why people vote for retention of conservative rule.)

          However, for Big Hairy Audacious Goals you need people who aren’t averse to thinking differently.

          They can be of the ‘compassionate Tory’ brand, or the wild-eyed lefty lot, but they are thinkers, and they shake things up, and most people can’t stand it so good so they vote for a bit of conservative breathing time.

          Change can be inching-slow most times. Sad, eh?

  4. Frank is quite correct.

    One comment from an anonymous Facebook poster qualifies as irrefutable evidence in my mind that the left have superior intellect.

  5. ….. Maybe ‘jack peters” is Gosman ??? :0

    right wing troll and all ……

    But then maybe he fools the stupid.

    Who created the GCSB Gossy ????? hehe 🙂

Comments are closed.