by frog
Rightwing blogger and Act Party devotee Trevor Loudon is scraping the bottom of the barrel in having another go at the Green Party. This time he has set his sights on new Green Party development coordinator Russel Norman. I guess he’s hoping to discredit the Greens and prove his hair-brained theory that the Party is a secret front for the communists.
Sadly for poor Trev, who is, or was, ACT’s Upper South Island Board member and was once described by Russel Brown as “… has been, is and probably always will be a remarkably pompous and self-important man …,? the reaction to his revelation about Russel is: So what?
(Except of course for Rodney Hide who chose to link to it from his blog.)
Russel has never tried to hide his background and in fact is proud of the diversity of his experience.
This is his response:
I joined the Democratic Socialist Party (or the Socialist Workers Party as it was known until it changed its name) when I was about 19 and was actively involved for several years.
When I finished high school and went to university I was one of only a few students from my state school year group to do so. It was very apparent that there was no equal access to opportunity for kids from state schools in Bjelke-Peterson’s Queensland. I cared deeply about issues of access to education, aboriginal dispossession, global poverty, inequality, sustainability etc (I still do!). My parents were members of the Labor Party, but Labor had embraced the new right, so I was looking for something better. Socialist politics drew me in because they were vocal on issues which really mattered to me.
Eventually I found myself in opposition to their ideology and politics. I didn’t agree with the fundamental lack of democracy in Marxist-Leninist ideology and I didn’t think their theories took environmental sustainability seriously. The former led to Stalinism and to a stultifying intellectual climate. The latter meant that they tried to reduce the ecological crisis to class politics, which was ridiculous. How could you claim to care about people and downplay the fact that the planet on which we all depend is being systematically destroyed? I tried to reform it, but I couldn’t and I left (an experience common to many people). Later, in the mid-1990s, I wrote a few articles for GreenLeft Weekly about New Zealand politics because the magazine is widely read in progressive circles and I believed that others could learn a lot from the good things that were happening in New Zealand (i.e. the resistance to Rogernomics and Ruthanasia, and later, GE).
I learned a lot from my youthful involvement in socialist party politics – it taught me a great deal about the world of political power and ideas. But it’s not where I am now. In the early 1990s I decided that if I wanted to help address the causes of injustice, war and environmental destruction, I needed to properly educate myself about the world of politics, and so I went back to university and did a BA and a PhD in politics. In the early to mid 1990s I became involved in Green Party politics because they believed in democracy, social justice and the protecting the environment, and were trying to do something about it. The rest, as they say, is history.
While I’m here, I’d like to say to those on the right that they should be less scared of ideas from the left or the green sides of politics. In the Greens we’ve learnt to take good ideas wherever they come from. We have accepted a basic idea of conservatism that “enough is enough?, and that ceaseless increase in material consumption, or ‘progress’, as the left has at times called it, does not make us happy and will destroy the planet. From the socialists and social liberals we take the importance of equal opportunity – the positive freedom to have decent food, housing, healthcare and education. It’s only when you have these things that you have freedom to do all the other things in life. From liberalism we have taken the centrality of the rule of law, the division of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary, and the importance of a vital public sphere where ideas can be freely discussed. And we even agree with the neo-liberals on the key role for the market, just not at the expense of people and the planet.
Unfortunately, the neo-liberals / new right have taken over the right side of politics and have rejected their conservative and liberal forebears. They believe enough is never enough, and their embrace of endless consumption will destroy the planet. They have rejected the social liberals’ care for community and instead believe only in negative freedom, that is, freedom from state intervention. This means that poor kids never get a chance to eat properly, go to decent schools, or get decent healthcare because it just isn’t possible to raise the tax to pay for it. And they are happy to see the public sphere destroyed by monopoly media companies, and parliament debased by the executive, as we saw when the Rogernomes forced through the new right revolution against the popular will.
There is nothing liberal about Act. They are socially conservative and economically new right – the same position as United Future and a good chunk of National. My prediction is that in trying to hold Epsom, Hide will only make them more socially conservative and more economically new right. Perhaps in years ahead ex-Act people will look back on their time with that organisation and think “well I learnt a lot but thank goodness I left!? It is a sentiment to which I can relate.
Published in Parliament by frog on Thu, February 2nd, 2006
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The problem with socialist movements/parties in the past is that they were arrogant in thinking that mental ideals/theories/philosphies was the thing, getting carried away with the sophistication of the human brain for ideas much as we have done with technology.
Because with out a sound foundation in sync with nature it means nothing.
Also wether it be what was called communism, what was called fascism, imperialism, free market or whateva, when they all have the same characteristics of repression and violation of human rights, environmental destruction and mass pollution, divisive mass propaganda, war and repressive technologies, class warfare and ruling elites seperate from the general population, they are all essentially the same, all essentially corrupt.
Never the less there is a rich history of the planet of civilisations living in peace, with no prisons, no criminals, no birth mortality, reproduction of physical excellence generation after generation, meaning of life in spiritual values and how much service has been rendered to the community with a profound respect of nature that they are one with.
Two histories, two futures:one obeying mother nature’s laws, the other not…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Loudon seems to require that everyone stays politically inert from the time they leave school.
Why doesn’t Richard Prebble or Roger Douglas’s involvement in the Labour Party disqualify them from being card-carrying members of the New Right? Why are the only changes-of-mind and heart that count are the ones that lead to the invisible hand?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with socialist movements/parties in the past is that they were arrogant in thinking that mental ideals/theories/philosphies was the thing, getting carried away with the sophistication of the human brain for ideas much as we have done with technology.
Because with out a sound foundation in sync with nature it means nothing.
Also weather it be what was called communism, what was called fascism, imperialism, free market or whateva, when they all have the same characteristics of repression and violation of human rights, environmental destruction and mass pollution, divisive mass propaganda, war and repressive technologies, class warfare and ruling elites seperate from the general population, they are all essentially the same, all essentially corrupt.
Never the less there is a rich history of the planet of civilisations living in peace, with no prisons, no criminals, no birth mortality, reproduction of physical excellence generation after generation, meaning of life in spiritual values and how much service has been rendered to the community with a profound respect of nature that they are one with.
Two histories,two futures: one obeying mother nature’s laws, the other not…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All warm sounding self justification that needs a fisking –
“While I’m here, I’d like to say to those on the right that they should be less scared of ideas from the left or the green sides of politics.” Should we take the example of your leaders and ignore those laws we dont like? lets just have fires whenever and drive at any speed everywhere. Great recommendation there.
“They believe enough is never enough” – Those on the right believe it is up to individuals not the state to determine what is enough. if you want to work hard crack on. If you want to sit on your arse dont expect me to pay for it.
“their embrace of endless consumption will destroy the planet” – Based on what evidence.
“It’s only when you have these things that you have freedom to do all the other things in life.” – If you look at markets satisfying basic needs in the West and enabling some like the Greens to more deeply consider the environment you would think that consumption & the market are a good thing. As more basic needs are satisfied for everyone on earth the environment gains more attention. The market leads to better ways of doing things. GE leads to less chemicals needed on crops. That will lead to a more sustainable earth. Not stopping all development like GE and infrastructure. Green policies would stop all development and keep us from having any trade. You would never have been able to import Nandor.
“poor kids never get a chance to eat properly” – compare the success of market based America with the failure of the USSR, Africa & North Korea. So called “poor” kids in America are obese. In the market based America that is through choice. Not so elsewhere
“public sphere destroyed by monopoly media companies” – bloggers bitchslapped the New York Times and Dan Rather! what are you talking about?
“the Rogernomes forced through the new right revolution against the popular will” – so why did Labour get re elected in 1987?
If you expect to be taken seriously, then get some logic & reason in your policy prescription rather than always screaming the sky is falling
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Someone should tell Trevor Loudon that the Iron Curtain came down and the Stalinist govts got replaced with more run-of-the-mill corrupt gangsters. He seems to be still living in 1983.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1983 is probably very significant, Psycho Milt. Trev’s anti-communist witch hunt took off in the late 1980s, at a time when the rest of the world was beginning to acknowledge that Stalinist communism was coming to an end. This kind of thinking is not logical, it’s a psychological defence in the face of defeat. Trev has never gotten over the Springbok Tour defeat and 1983 was the last year of Muldoon’s authoritarian leadership. Muldoon attempted to turn back the anti-Tour movement by publishing lists of communists supposedly behind it. Trev’s “exposes” following Labour’s re-election and the virtual disappearance of ACT fulfil a similar psychological function.
Senator McCarthy illustrated this kind of thinking in this 1951 quote:
“How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.…What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence.…The laws of probability would dictate that part of…[the] decisions would serve the country’s interest.?
The quote is from Richard Hofstadter’s classic 1964 piece: The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/ The_paranoid_style.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m glad Mr Norman has nothing to hide about his past involvement with the SWP/DSP. He won’t mind answering these questions then…?
Can you please confirm if you held any official positions in the
SWP/DSP, or any of its auxiliary organisations ie Resistance,
Environmental Youth Alliance, CISLAC etc?
Did you ever travel to any socialist bloc countries, including Cuba or
Nicaragua during your time with the SWP/DSP?
Did you ever belong to any other political party ie Australian Greens,
Labor Party, Nuclear Disarmament Party, while you were affiliated to the
SWP/DSP?
In which year did you formally resign your membership of the DSP?
Were you, before 2005, aware of Keith Locke’s and Jeanette Fitzsimon’s
involvement with the DSP?
If you had sincerely renounced Marxism-Leninism, why were you still
contributing to a Marxist-Leninist newspaper (GreenLeft Weekly) as late
as 1999?
In what year and in what circumstances, did you last have any formal or
informal contact with the DSP, its auxiliary organisations or senior
personnel?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not going to answer Trevor’s further questions then huh?? What a pity…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you change your mind, it proves that you have one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AF
“Did you ever travel to … Cuba or Nicaragua …”
WTF ??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
These are Trevor’s questions, I am merely posting them on his behalf in the hope that Frog/Russell answer them. If you would like to question Trevor over them you are best to do this at-
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/02/further-questions-for-russell-norm an.html
I would imagine it has something to do with the large number of NZ/Aus communists/communist sympathizers (and others I might add) who visited communist/soviet-bloc countries during the 1970’s-80’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Falloooon, you posted some questions at 9.54. Then you posted at 9.56 saying ‘aha, not going to answer my questions’.
what kind of a twat are you? Do you really expect Russel to be monitoring this comments thread at the exact moment that you posted your message?
Unlike ACT bloggers, Greens actually have a life.
If you want him to answer your dumb McCarthyism-style questions then how about you email him and ask him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Given Trevor’s past links to Christchurch Neo-Nazis, he’s surely the last person who has a right to complain about people having dodgy pasts!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He sounds like Chavez or Morales
But oh no they wouldn’t have any thing to do with commuinism, would they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Responding to SageNZ
Sage NZ – “Should we take the example of your leaders and ignore those laws we dont like? lets just have fires whenever and drive at any speed everywhere. Great recommendation there.”
Don’t know that there’s really an argument here. I was suggesting that you should move beyond your comfort zones and be open to new ideas. This law breaking thing sounds like mud slinging not argument.
Sage NZ – “Those on the right believe it is up to individuals not the state to determine what is enough. if you want to work hard crack on. If you want to sit on your arse dont expect me to pay for it.”
The issue is that there needs to be limits to consumption because the planet is a limited resource. There is only so much atmosphere to pollute. it’s a bit rich the right talking about sitting on your arse – how exactly does paris Hilton earn her income?
Sage NZ – ““their embrace of endless consumption will destroy the planet? – Based on what evidence. ”
The evidence is that exponential growth in energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels is heating the planet. Try reading New Scientist. or is that a commie plot too!
Sage NZ – “If you look at markets satisfying basic needs in the West and enabling some like the Greens to more deeply consider the environment you would think that consumption & the market are a good thing. As more basic needs are satisfied for everyone on earth the environment gains more attention.”
Markets are vital for the production of goods and services and do a fine job. But they don’t mean that basic needs of everyone are met. Without external controls markets lead to greater inequality – remember the welfare state was a response to the last great period of unregulated markets – the Great Depression.
Sage NZ “The market leads to better ways of doing things. GE leads to less chemicals needed on crops. That will lead to a more sustainable earth. Not stopping all development like GE and infrastructure. Green policies would stop all development and keep us from having any trade.”
The market can lead to better ways to do things or it may not. Thalidomide seemed like a good idea and the market produced and distributed it extremely well. it just turned out to be not such a good idea really and it required the state to step in to stop the market producing and distributing it. GE in the lab has been great, eg insulin drugs, GE outside the lab is a whole different issue. Roundup ready crops lead to increased use of Roundup not less – think about it. We don’t want to stop development, we want to direct the energies of the market in a sustainable direction so that we internalise the environmental costs – eco-taxes and the like.
NZ Sage – “compare the success of market based America with the failure of the USSR, Africa & North Korea. So called “poor? kids in America are obese. In the market based America that is through choice. Not so elsewhere”
I think poverty in American is well hidden. It took something like the New Orleans disaster for the rest of the world to see the deep poverty that is widespread in the States.
Sage NZ – ““public sphere destroyed by monopoly media companies? – bloggers bitchslapped the New York Times and Dan Rather! what are you talking about?”
The blogoshere is a great new dimension of the public sphere. But the main media companies are still owned by a highly concentrated group of corporations who use their power to frame the debate in a very conservative manner. It has gotten so bad that CNN now seems progressive because Murdoch’s Fox news is soo fabulously right wing!
Sage NZ – ““the Rogernomes forced through the new right revolution against the popular will? – so why did Labour get re elected in 1987? ”
Labour was re-elected in 1987 on a promise of no privatisations. it promptly embarked on the biggest privatisation program in NZ history. that’s not democratic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel I really wouldnt waste your time with these cyber anoracks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Responding to Falloon.
I hope your campaign to be on the Act Board is going well. I see Trevor is endorsing you.
I feel somewhat hesitant about responding to Trev’s questions because it does seem a bit McCarthyist. But I shall do my best – it really was a long time ago – but in return I’d like Trev to answer my questions which i shall post separately.
Trev. “Can you please confirm if you held any official positions in the
SWP/DSP, or any of its auxiliary organisations ie Resistance,
Environmental Youth Alliance, CISLAC etc?”
I held a few voluntary positions. Never made the chief kahuna I’m afraid.
Trev “Did you ever travel to any socialist bloc countries, including Cuba or
Nicaragua during your time with the SWP/DSP?”
No, never have. Is it ok with you if I travel to Nicaragua now that the Sandinistas lost the democratic elections that they organised?
Trev: “Did you ever belong to any other political party ie Australian Greens, Labor Party, Nuclear Disarmament Party, while you were affiliated to the SWP/DSP?”
Nope.
Trev – “In which year did you formally resign your membership of the DSP?”
Slightly vague on that one I’m afraid – very early nineties – maybe ‘91?
Trev – “Were you, before 2005, aware of Keith Locke’s and Jeanette Fitzsimon’s involvement with the DSP?”
I’m still not aware of it. Speaking to a conference of the Green left magazine (which is what i think Jeanette is being accused of) is hardly invovlement. Sorry I don’t read your blog otherwise I may be more aware of the ins and outs of it. I guess you mean Keith’s connections witht he left in the 1970s…
Trev- “If you had sincerely renounced Marxism-Leninism, why were you still contributing to a Marxist-Leninist newspaper (GreenLeft Weekly) as late
as 1999?”
GreenLeft has a range of writers. John Pilger is no Marxist Leninist. And nor am I. I would happily contribute an article to the Nat Business Review but that doesn’t mean I subscribe to their politics does it?
Trev – “In what year and in what circumstances, did you last have any formal or informal contact with the DSP, its auxiliary organisations or senior personnel? ”
You know you really should get out more. There is no global communist conspiracy. I haven’t had contact with them since I left – except I guess when I emailed the articles to GreenLeft in 1996 and 1999. Nothing personal. There were some really nice people there but I’ve been doing other things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My questions for Trev:
Have you ever been a member of, or associated with, ZAP – Zenith Applied Philosophy? What was your involvement?
Were you aware of the association between ZAP and the fascist Nationalist Workers Party?
When did you last have contact with the people associated with ZAP?
Do you think that fascism had something postive to offer the world?
Do you believe that the holocaust happened?
Is your blog “New Zeal” named after the magazine of the same name published in the late 1980s by the Campaign for a Soviet Free New Zealand? What was your invovlement in the New Zeal magazine?
Did you agree with the New Zeal editorial of April 1989 connecting Ron Trotter, the Todds and the Business Roundtable with pro-Soviet and pro-Stalinist activities such as leading business delegations to the USSR, and having other business connections such as selling “Stalinist oil”? Do you still think that the Business Roundtable is a communist front group?
Did you agree with the July 1989 edition of New Zeal when it accused the Young Nats of being “Marxianised” because they were addressed by a member of NZ Planning Council?
Do you still believe that being a member of the NZ Planning Council made you a Marxist, and if so does that mean that Don Brash is a closet marxist because he was a member of the Planning Council?
If Ron Trotter, Don Brash, the Todds and the Business Roundtable are all part of the communist conspiracy, then what the hell planet are you on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe we could use Trev as feedstock for a SOYLENT GREEN plant.
After all he is a bit of a fossil.
Commies – ROTFL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russell..altough loudon probably sets a new benchmark for the loony far-right…what he is getting at..(although maybe even he dosen’t know)…is a concern that is shared by many not of his ideology…
namely..do you think the greens should always take that handmaiden to labour role..?
‘cos there are some greens out here who feel the world is changing very fast..and with these changes ..the old certainties are going..or will be going soon…
and as environmental issues/concerns become less able to be ideologically noted as only of leftish concern…
so the scenario is…say..come next election….or the one after…or the one after…other parties than labour have stronger environmental policies than labour….(or some ‘killer-punch’ gordian knot-cutter offer).. and (your expected partners) the maori party would look at some other arrangment..with those other parties..
what do you think the greens should do in a situation like that..?
do you think those doors to other possible coalition partners should always be kept closed..?
i think these are the concerns/questions being voiced by those raking over your ‘radical(?)’ past….
and they are also questions others of us wouldn’t mind answers to..
imho..any ideological ring-fencing/constraints of/on the greens will not be good for the party..nor the environment….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil -
whom is invited to coaltion with greens is an event-based phenomenon, moderated by the co-leaders and other appropriately experienced members of the green party.
Personally, I would not continue to be a green member if I thought there was ever a chance that my elected green MP’s would be in coalition with people who supported GE biotechnology, environmental vandalism, or social engineering experiments designedto punish the poor & find out how much poverty the poplulace can stomach before there is rioting in the streets.
Russ –
great replies. You’re still the thinking women’s favourite redhead!! Not sure if that means co-leader material, but certainly makes for “easy on the brainstem”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie..you are responding to this point in time..and recent history..
i did make a point of pointing to the future….with the scenario of course not containing those components you refer to…in fact just the opposite…
‘cos things change..that is..after all..the only constant….
so..for those reasons i think the question/scenario is a reasonable one…
and the reason i ask is that untill now..(with good reason)..the greens have leaned to labour..(with questionable results/outcomes..?..)
but as i said in my piece..environmental issues are becoming less ideological …
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, if many are concerned about the leftish tilt of the Green Party, I’d assume that there’d be a movement amongst Green members to remove references to Social Justice from the Green Charter. I’m not aware of any.
And I don’t think anyone has ever said that doors should always be kept closed on “other potential coalition partners” (how coy). Some were ruled out prior to the last elections. I suspect they’ll be ruled out again before the next election, unless “other potential coalition partners” get wildly better environmental and social justice policies, or the Greens get wildly worse ones. Fair enough. Do you think no parties should ever be ruled out?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pip..there are no concerns on my part about a leftish tilt to the greens..so i don’t quite get your point about ‘removing’ social justice from green policy..
(sigh)..if you read what i said i was at pains to make those distinctions on current and future policies..(and ..no..i am not saying the greens should have gone with the brash model of national…..for the same reasons the maori party would have been loath to go with that model…)
i am presenting scenarios/outcomes in the future..
you said “..And I don’t think anyone has ever said that doors should always be kept closed on “other potential coalition partners?..
um..pip..you obviously need to trawl back through statments..from rod in particular..at virtually every election…
and i repeat…i am not talking about the past or the present..i am talking about the future….
and as far as parties being ruled in or out..that is surely dependant on policies on the day and a raft of other concerns…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(nb..i don’t know when/if this comment will appear..as my response to katie was posted last evening..and is still not up…)..so apologies in advance for staccatto continuity…
mm!…is it only me noticing..?..or has frogblog become a 10 ’till 3..mon-fri sorta gig..
and is that the way it will be for the forseeable future..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
why is it that you are kicking out poor old keith, in favour of norman, you cant have a leader woith a name like norman for gods sakes,
george is a better name,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor and Andrew are great guys. I know both well. The ad hominem attacks by a few commentators make this blog one of the nastiest in the blogosphere. While these attacks may not be representative of the party, there doesn’t seem to be much reaction from other commentators here.
All Trevor has done is present a set of facts. To say they are irrelevant then post a 500 word rebuttal is inconsistent. To react vitriolically compounds my feeling that Trevor has hit a very raw nerve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
See “ad hominen”, “nasty blogsphere”, “vitriol”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not really an argument there mate. Kind of reinforces my point really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
david seymour…”..The ad hominem attacks by a few commentators make this blog one of the nastiest in the blogosphere…”
while i would concede greens can be as nasty and petty in their lives and to other people as any other type of human..(though they do tend to cloak/conceal theirs under a cloud of self-rightousness…eh..?..:)..
all i can say is ‘get thee to rightwingblog sir humphrys..post-haste..’
this place is playskool compared to that mob…go..see them (in a concerted effort) scale new heights of vitriol/nastiness at any who dare question any of their givens…..
(hint….suggest you have heard someone called lucyna actually supports communism..(especially the soviet ‘brand’)…then stand well back…)
(ahem..i am currently under a months banning over there..for irreverant piss-taking….i
t’s pretty much a humour-free zone..sir humphrys…you sure don’t go there for chuckles..unless they are at some little pile of fevered spittle left behind by their ‘running-dog’..
(and any attempts at humour..laboured as they are..invariably involve pain for one of the characters..(sort of a ‘germanic sense of humour’..big on prat-falls..the germans..)
but the humphry ones invariably involve that pain/death being inflicted on persons not of european stock….
so ..i’m banned by the far-right…
and all my comments are scrutinised/censored by our resident reddish-tinged amphibian….
(with hints from kathie and pip that i might be a rightie..tee-hee.!.)
i’m either doing something right..or..?
(i’ll get back to you on that…:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
um frog..as you already editing…could you correct a typo for me please…running-dog should be plural…
thank you..:)
phil
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
staccatto-continuity warning…..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I could spell it out for you DS …
- ad hominen – Trev’s whole blog is about personal attacks on people who he doesn’t agree with
- nasty blogsphere – take a peak at the comments left by Trev’s supporters
- vitriol – OK, maybe I’d settle for describing the tone of that blog as obsessive
…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frogblog one of the nastiest blogs in the blogosphere? eh? what? have you actually read any others?
vitriolic response? er, where exactly? I think most of the response is one of incredulity and hilarity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you dudes been notice how many fascist neo liberal using the word ‘green’ lately, like even in ACT, awful isn’t it we might have them riparian boundary trees and fertiliser suctions up and running along the cow trail, while you still talking about that dead Coyote, and, apparently there going to be quite a lot of attack at Noman especially when Locke go,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i have been censored again….a whole post…(which is why my last comment above makes no sense)….
um…thinking about what i wrote..wtf is going on frog..?..aren’t you carrying censorship to ridiculous levels..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
also why do Norman idiotically carry on Rod Donald’s and Green’s claim that increased consumption be given the misnomer ‘progress’ thus allowing you to think that progressive tax, is equivalent to more tax,
and according to you a ‘progressive tax’ is taxing some people more than others,
sorry dudes this is regressive, provenly regressive,
drop yous social policies and come out with you web feet up,
because this you last term in parliament,
we going to steal green from you
and we going to leave you as you are,
reds,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I note Trevor still hasn’t answered Russel’s questions, which include much of what I was referring to in my post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m glad Russel answered Trev’s questions because it showed that his “facts? are not necessarily true. What can we conclude from Trev’s silence on Russel’s questions?
I agree with fastbike: Trev’s whole blog consists of ad hominem attacks, focussing on people’s affiliations (or past affiliations) rather than what they actually say and do. Doesn’t he have the ability to argue with ideas he doesn’t like?
I’m still puzzled as to why someone would obsess over New Zealand Marxists and ex-Marxists in this day and age. They have probably never amounted to more than a few hundred people and, of those still living, many have grown beyond their youthful political convictions. If “the commies? weren’t able to hold back the tide of Rogernomics twenty years ago, what possible danger do they pose to ACT’s agenda today? I really don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gosh Mr Seymour,
You seem a little flustered that Russel has actually responded to – and in fact successfully rebutted – AF/Trev’s questions.
The only vitriol and ad hominem attacks come from the ACT camp.
Build a bridge and get over yourself. Otherwise get some multinational corporation to build it for you.
- Shawn Tan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is nuts. Andrew and Trev are both going for positions on ACTs board, David has been elected unopposed for Auckland South. PeterQuixote, well, he’s active in ACT at least. And at least interesting.
But, don’t you guys have some issues of your own to deal with? Or have you figured that presenting a positive vision that’ll gain your own platform some support is a lost cause, and the best you can hope to do from now on is attack those you see as the greatest threat?
Personally, I think the Greens should take your obsessiveness as a compliment.
Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russell, thank you for answering those. I wasn’t aware Trevor had endorsed me.
Stuey, I was on dial-up at the time and the questions didn’t come up when i refreshed the page so I figured I had “lost” them which has happened to me a couple of times on this site. The second question was asked because they were also listed on Trevor’s blog. I can assure you I most certainly have a life
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you right pip, we gotta stop this,
lets face it, if yous fwwog things get extinquistincted
in 2008 because of having another communist leader and then the votes in 2008 go to try to make a helengrad 4,
so we really got to changed our mines on this issue
and we decided we like you, we going to tell people to give you votes and we promise to say nice things about the new red head,
look i was talking to the fascist and heres what stront said look he said,
” i rather have jeanette in parliemant than that helengrad thing”, so there you go,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Responding to Phil U
If I may cut to the chase, your real question is whether I could envisage a future scenario in which we were willing to form a coalition with National.
And at this stage my answer is no, as the Nats are so anti-people and anti the environment. This may be because National is currently under the control of two ex-bankers – John Key and Don Brash – who had closer relations with international finance than NZ industry. Key’s job as an investment banker was to make money by moving it wherever it could make a buck regardless of the social or environmental costs – I wonder what environmental destruction the man has funded and what kind of regimes he has invested in (in fact someone should look into it). And Brash’s job as Reserve Bank Governor was to protect the NZ investments of overseas investors by keeping a lid on inflation and keeping interest rates high. Neither Key nor Brash strike me as the kind of people that are going to promote the interests of NZ business, people or the NZ environment ahead of the interests of global finance capital. It might be harder to answer if Key and Brash were replaced by English, and Labour continued on its rightward direction (eg by continuing to oppose the right of international environmental treaties to trump WTO rules). But that is in the realm of theory…
National is possibly not as bad as United Future who actually received direct assistance from the US Embassy in the 2002 election (Dunne admitted this in Raymond Miller’s recent book on political parties).
The only bright spot is that the international insurance industry is extremely cognisant of the implications of climate change because they’re the ones that have to pay out eveytime a hurricane hits Florida, so maybe if Brash and Key listened more to them then they wouldn’t be head in the sands climate change deniers/downplayers.
Having said all that, I really agree with Jeanette’s fomulation in her state of the planet address: “We are not part of government or of opposition. We are a free and independent Green Party and are free to speak our minds and to stand up for the environment, for justice, for peace and for democracy in opposition to the Government where our policies differ.” We are not Labour’s handmaidens. We are free and independent to speak our minds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russel..thank you for responding (in part)..tho’ i note you have fallen into the same trap as pip and katie..
can i repeat for the fourth(?) time….i am not talking about the present..nor the recent past..
i am talking about the future..(i really thought i was at pains to point that out..but i obviously failed..)..i also noted that this brash-led mutation of national was not what i was talking about…
so..95% of your response is a ‘fisking’ of something that wasn’t there…eh..?
and you paid no atention to the nub of the question..namely the
‘what if?’ scenarios around the complexities of the relationships with the maori party and their (probably) warming relationship with national..and what that would/could mean for the greens…?..and the inherent pitfalls/shortcomings of “we only go with labour..”
surely you can see this…?..and the possible implications/complications..as far as advancing (or not) the green message/agenda is concerned..?
could you please address those issues..?..
which were..after all..what i was asking you…i wasn’t asking for a denunciation of the personal histories of brash and key….(i know how to do that…:)
if i could just repeat my original question..
“so the scenario is…say..come next election….or the one after…or the one after…other parties than labour have stronger environmental policies than labour….(or some ‘killer-punch’ gordian knot-cutter offer).. and (your expected partners) the maori party would look at some other arrangment..with those other parties..
what do you think the greens should do in a situation like that..?
do you think those doors to other possible coalition partners should always be kept closed..?..”
that is the question i (and others) would really like a response to…
and brave rhetoric to one side..”..We are not Labour’s handmaidens. We are free and independent to speak our minds…”
the reality is somewhat different tho’..eh..?
and ..pray..how have the greens not been playing the (often spurned) handmaiden role up untill now…?…surely history would make a falsity of your ‘we are not handmaidens’ claim..?
i would note a failure to grapple with this issue could well leave the greens (as you say) “.. free and independent to speak our minds…”
but speaking to an empty room…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what the fuck you talkin’ ’bout phil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just in, Trev wants to be vice prez for act
go trev .
That’ll be good for the party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
um russell…is there still a dialogue going on here..?
if so..could you have another go at answering that question..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Phil,
OK, I’ll have another go at answering your question briefly and in general terms.
I think that we are an independent party and we decide how closely or otherwise to work with other political parties, including the Maori Party, based on how closely or otherwise they are to our policies and philosophy. So that means we keep an open mind while sticking to our principles.
russel
PS. I note that there is a related discussion in the Green members’ forum and members may wish to discuss it further there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oo-er..(miaow..!..)..that’s a low blow russell..knowing that i have been banned from joining the green party..
and therefor have no access to the undoubted intellectual delights of the ‘green members forum’..
and then you just not answering the question..eh..?
let’s hope you are more forthcoming there ..eh..?
‘cos no..”brief and in general terms’ would pretty much sum it up…
‘just giving it a big swerve’ would be another..eh..?
tho’ i am pleased to hear the greens are now talking about this internally..
‘i’ll just keep banging away out here..eh..?..in public..as it were..:)
(ooh..i am looking forward to blogging questiontime…..should be fun..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(p.s. to frog censor…i did mention something about ‘an exercise in pomposity’…but i took it out ..eh..?…see how you’ve got me so browbeaten i’m censoring myself…!..)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The funny thing is, one of my biggest disappointments about the Greens is their emphatic embrace of capitalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Haha, check out Trevor’s latest: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-best-ever-threat_28.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)