Due Diligence
Due Diligence
When you take on the pursuit of truth, you make the above your evolving compass.
Recently, I didn’t do my due diligence. As an opinion writer, I tend to jump to conclusions that are based on psychological analytics, proof, subversive studies, and historical patterns. I often fail to put the required amount of effort into due diligence before I come to a set conclusion. After all, all I know is not all I could know. The way to avoid this failure is to use uncertain language in your writing style. You express clearly what you are unsure about and what you know, and you keep them separate. That’s why news and opinion had to be kept separate in the past, the too-busy worker would not be able to differentiate between fact and potential fiction. Even then, if your writing is convincing, readers will still be led to believe things that may not be true. If someone calls you out on that and their point is fair, you better offer a remedy. Opinion pieces are an attempt to get the reader to entertain your perspective, but if you are a good writer, you can make the mistake of convincing the reader that doubtful scenarios are truthful scenarios.
I take on the challenge of writing about complex but important things because I have a mind that is capable of exploring the macro. Yet, this does not mean that I know the macro. The macro is infinite, and just because a Jack of all trades is claimed to be a master of life, does not mean that Jack has mastered life. You can always do more due diligence. When I accused Samantha Edwards of not doing her due diligence and being aligned in thought with former spook commander Christopher Finlayson, I had to say sorry. She did do some due diligence and I don’t know the latter, it was just a belief. So, I required myself to deliver a remedy and remorse, so I obliged. However, that does not mean that Samantha Edwards got everything right in her report on Winston Peters. You can always do more due diligence.
In Parliament and legal processes, due diligence is expressed through due process. It’s not a complete form of due diligence, as you can always do more due diligence, and due process only accounts for procedure. It doesn’t account for law, discernment, and native intelligence. Worse still, flawed contracts and confidentiality agreements have overshadowed due process over the past four decades. Due process has become an obvious lack of due diligence, thanks to a deluded insistence that due process concerning contracts and confidentiality agreements is law. All contracts and agreements are bound to the maxim first in time is best in law. If your first covenant/contract/agreement is to the one who lent you a sliver of consciousness, and you claim to be reasonable, then you have an obligation to the principle; do no harm injury or loss to others. What contract-bound and details-drowned legal due process has forgotten, is its obligation to law and the difference between law and contractual rules.
Thanks to the imbalanced influx of contradictory atheists and contradictory moral relativists (stupid people), governance has become a contract-empowered coercive tyrant that uses pseudo-rationality, fear, and fraudulent debt to justify its commitment to unlawful contracts and actions.
For us to justify the above statement, unbound men and women would have to evolve their due diligence to prove it to the ruled and unruled masses. To do this, they would have to grasp due process that has a foundation of reason. They would have to comprehend statements of reason that stand the test of time. In short, law and maxims. Law stands the test of time because people come and go but the land air and water remain. So Law that maintains the universal aspects of life is self-evidently consistent. Maxims stand the test of time because both the polarities of consciousness (Masculine and Feminine) agree with their premise. How do we determine whether this is still the case? Discussion and Debate. We know that Deception may be at play when power is used to avoid the two previous Ds. Deception may exist in the government’s behaviour toward the people, but that doesn’t get resolved until the plank is removed from your own eye.
The Freedom and Truth Movement cannot overcome the establishment while it continues to exhibit behaviour that mimics the worst of its opposition, its opposition knows this. If our opposition (Narcissists and Psychopaths) were sophisticated enough in their ignorant pursuit of self-destruction, they would not waste time waging open war on the Freedom and Truth Movement. They would simply fill it up with their self-destructive cult actors, and control both sides through superior influence. How? By getting them to “believe” what Christians should know. Then, gain notoriety for “believing” what “Christians” believe, and then use that notoriety to influence their “followers” not to pursue due diligence. What do we call this? Turning popular opinion into a weapon through cult creation; psychological warfare. Who also did that? Jacinda Ardern. What is the best way to avoid this often unconscious act?
Remind “your followers” whom you remind are supporters, not followers; to think for themselves and question everything. Once you’ve secured repetition of the need to identify the plank in their own eye, the next challenge is mentorship of reason.
Recently, I came in contact with another concept, one that removed the need to prove controlled opposition. The dispersal of arrogance and resentment amongst well-meaning teams through a well-known psychological phenomenon called mood contagion. A psychological trap that can ensnare anyone no matter their good intentions. It can compel a revolutionary struggling with their awareness of criminally minded societal dominance, to engage in processes that ignore due diligence. Thus, putting the speck that is in the eye of the tyrannical opposition into a plank that fits into the revolutionary’s eye. The success of this strategy doesn’t require much, all you need is a group of sufficiently motivated drug addicts and traumatized individuals to infiltrate an advocacy group, repeat unnecessary negativity at every meeting, and before you know it, everyone in that group is feeling and then thinking the same negative shit; defeatism. This is the psychological application of winning a war without firing a single bullet. Where did we observe and record all of this? The Dig In At Marsden.
It is why Voices for Freedom, Family First, and other successful Conservative groups run ships that appear to be overly tight and callously exclusive to people on the outside. The problem isn’t them doing this, that’s understandable, the problem is not being transparent about why they do it and whether that exclusion should apply to those who question their contradictory actions.
Once a defeatist psychology has been effectively repeated into the minds of your team, it’s all downhill from there. Now you can convince opposition team members to stop finding ways around challenges, and instead take on an easy option; a political campaign scam. You can get them to start implementing pushback procedures that have no due process and no due diligence, why? Because they never bothered to go through the education that was offered to them, an education that would attempt to teach them the basics of due process and due diligence. That’s why you should not cast pearls before swine. Thanks to this demoralized breakdown, you can create an activist army that knows that what they are doing is wrong, but does it anyway for the “greater good”. They get put into positions of authority within the scam and act like power-lacking versions of their opposition because they lack consistency and competency in their professed values.
In the last article, I declared that the Freedom and Truth Movement didn’t need unity, it needed competence and consistency. Large numbers of political opticians comprehend that and work to pursue competence and consistency. Hannah Tamaki, Anne Williamson, Alfred Ngaro, Matthew King, Kirsten Murfitt, Leighton Baker, and Helen Houghton to name a few. Prior to the last few weeks, I would have included Liz Gunn and others I have failed to mention due to brevity and a memory not dedicated to names. Liz Gunn is not omitted because of her lack of competency as an orator, she is clearly the best among most at that. Liz Gunn is omitted because she is the director of a dysfunctional organization that now mimics the government under Jacinda Ardern. All fluff, no substance, backed by nothing more than half of the Freedom and Truth Movement’s media.
To be fair to Liz Gunn she is not fully to blame for the failure and chaos of NZLoyal. Truth be told, we’ve only had some form of robust proof of the organization’s due process for just over a week. The fall of NZLoyal has come from those who rose to positions of authority within the party’s organisation networks. Just like that corporation down in Wellington, dead entities only function with the law and reason in mind if good, consistent, and accountable people direct those dead entities. Those people cannot be consistent if they do not know the law, they cannot be competent if they do not know due process, and they cannot be accountable if they do not know their constitution. Many within NZLoyal do not know the law, and they openly abuse the things they say they stand for, many within NZLoyal do not know due process, because they only have fourteen pages of due process. Many within NZLoyal do not know their constitution, worse their constitution is a temporary tyranny under Liz Gunn.
I respect Liz Gunn, Kiwi and Sue, these three helped our refinery cause more than everyone I listed above. That’s why I do what I do now in this article. I don’t avoid criticising friends just because they’re friends, in fact, a good friend would tell their friend the truth. My partner does, she calls me a dickhead every day and loves me anyway. This article’s intent is not to embarrass them, its intent is to smack them back down to earth in a way that is fitting to those who influence thousands on our team. If you are a public figure, you benefit from the protections the private offers, until you break the tenets that the private requires you to uphold. If you use your influence over public opinion to subvert reality into something that hides a wrong or commits a wrong for your group’s hypothetical gain, you lose the privilege of the private, and you should lose the privilege of public influence. That is until you provide proper remedy and evidence that you have learned a lesson.
None of them have done this, and while proclaiming their hypothetical victimhood to their supporters, they defame my character and the character of other allies in the same way a real-life Little Mermaid villain did over a year ago. Back then, they helped me collect evidence of the lies she was spreading about me, I want those allies back. Not the dogmatic hypocrites that behave like the division they called out in Advance NZ. When it was decided that I would not be assisting the NZLoyal campaign, Liz proclaimed to me that she had done her due diligence. My response now? Are you sure? It doesn’t look like you’ve done due diligence at all. Had you done your due diligence, your campaign wouldn’t be a weaker fluffier version of Advance NZ’s campaign.
You may not agree with that and that’s fine we should debate that, but let’s not kid ourselves. As the great Tana Umaga said, this isn’t tiddlywinks mate. Serious shit is going on internationally and it’s going to take a lot more than a former breakfast presenter to change our path. Especially if she can’t take criticism and that same arrogant attitude is rubbing off on the disillusioned Liberals she’s collecting. They’ll end up doing more harm than good. Could they be an effective opposition to the social services and beneficiary and pensioner needle that will be a National and ACT coalition? Sure, I think that’s the best NZLoyal angle Counterspin has come up with so far, but it’s a little late for that strategy now. Due diligence is best done beforehand, not at the end of a political campaign. If you have good intent, but don’t have competence in the form of due diligence, the masses will continue to choose immoral competence as their rulers.
Had you done your due diligence you would have questioned what voting for government means. Had you done your due diligence you would know that you are voting for an adversary for the public you claim to care about. Had you done your due diligence you would know that public means consent-based slave. Had you done your due diligence you would know that this adversarial system uses mob manipulation and inconsistent rules to get “results” for an indebted corporation. Had you done your due diligence, you would have included basic math in your quest to “make a difference” with your vote. Had you done your due diligence you would know that Liz Gunn was only allowed to have a social media following of around thirty-thousand. Had you done your due diligence you would have noticed that Winston Peters is nearly eighty. Had you done your due diligence you would have bet your hard-earned koha on the policy marketing that would protect your energy security. Had you done your due diligence you would know that real change comes from within.
Here’s hoping you learn a lesson instead of calling everyone but yourself stupid.