To my knowledge Trotter has never been part of an environmentalist group, and is certainly not closely associated any on the present crop of “young guns” (as you put it) within NZ environmentalist movements. He just has no clue of what he is talking about, and I suspect you are in the same camp. Further to this, neither of you can produce one instance of an environmentalist committing a political murder in NZ. As such your musings about these social movements that you know next to nothing about, committing acts of guerrilla warfare are just morbid dreams, and wishful thinking (no doubt you would love to have a “terrorist” act committed by a left-leaning New Zealander so you could use it to smear the rest of the NZ left).

Oh dear – I’d forgotten about the PM style of debate: convert one set of words into something that is then so self-evidently extreme that no actual argument or thinking is required to respond. Key words and phrases for you to re-read:
- violence
- threat of violence
- past
- and
- likelihood
- future
- at what stage….?
- rationale

as opposed to:
- blowing up
- soon
- are going to
- all
- crazy

Problem was Trotter had already voiced that paranoid and unsupported opinion.

I introduce you to the following:
- PETA
- Pentti Linkola
- http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
- Wild Greens

So you were wrong in assuming that he hadn’t expressed crazed fantasies similar to your own.

Once again there is a danger in pejorative assertions bouncing back at you – I’d read that Sea Shepard article before throwing around the phrase “crazed fantasies”.

I note that Trotter is capable of putting forward an argument that pulls together actual historic events and movements such as New Jerusalem, The Weathermen, and Baader-Meinhof, with current Aotearoa Indymedia commentary and the self-evident “millenarian (and even apocalyptic) thinking” in both the Green and Maori movements, to demonstrate that people in those movements might reach the point where they think that armed struggle is necessary. He also notes that the presence in the Greens of ‘former’ Maoist and Trotskyist people mean the likelihood of a fair amount of sympathy for young guns like yourself.

By contrast you are only able to produce a thin gruel of pejorative assertions – “paranoid”, “crazed” – that imply that no such thing is possible from the far-left groups that you run with. We should trust your assertion when it does not even amount to a denial, let alone a reasoned opinion that refutes the points cited by Trotter?

No wonder his piece is centered around “exploring the case for armed struggle” while you simply indulge in a patella reflex of “crazed fantasies”.

Apart from this the more important point I was making with the reference to the ‘dynamite’ article (and the same deficiency applies to his “armed struggle” article) – is that Trotter never actually bothers to delve into the question of whether such violence is a natural outgrowth of far-left movements.

That is a question that apparently cannot arise. Evidently the causes they choose to fight for are just, the righteousness is just, the virtue is pure, the stakes are always the highest, and hence the only arguments remaining are around the actions needed to support the cause, with the final implication that violence will only be a regrettable last resort, and even then most likely still only a response to external factors such as state violence or an almost organic isolation of the just by the rest of society.

By contrast in this article the assumption applied to the right-wing by Trotter is that violence is quite natural and to be expected. Of course this is not delved into either.

It’s all very Manichaean and in that respect there is no daylight between you and Trotter at all. However, he at least has started thinking about where all this might be going. You are still denying, though whether that is the naivete of one who thinks he is among the virtuous, or the low cunning of a deceiver will only be known with time.

Great minds think i suppose
If you’re looking in the mirror you suppose too much.

A little too pessimistic –

Labour should be back in 2014 (while 2011 may be close, provided National manage MMP they should get back in).

The economy is not going to tank it, but it will be difficult in government because of rising food, fuel, power and rents. National will hand out the surplus by removing the top tax rate and handing out tax cuts to the middle class – leaving nothing to compensate lower wage workers. Labour will rebuild around them under Little outside of parliament. Business will claim the 4% into Kiwi Saver means there should be no increase in minimum wage. But workers on the minimum – cannot afford Kiwi Saver and they and other workers on lower incomes who cannot afford Kiwi Saver, will want higher wages because of rising costs.

No wonder ‘whore’ gets, is it 2 million?, or 3 million hits a month? Razor wit and all…eh?

You should go back and read some of your comments, on this site, from a few years ago Phule. You appear to have stopped evolving.

in his own words..

..’little’…’chicken’..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

“But it would be more accurate to say that I was half-right. He has indeed examined the possibilities of environmentalists using violence in future.”

Nah – you said that he should talk about how environmentalists are going to start blowing up the country soon because they’re all crazy. Problem was Trotter had already voiced that paranoid and unsupported opinion. So you were wrong in assuming that he hadn’t expressed crazed fantasies similar to your own. Great minds think i suppose

oh and BTW, you would probably be wise to not dismiss the the very real threat that conventional oil scarcity poses to the global economy. Suffice to say, very few people who know anything about the global oil industry are so dismissive as you appear to be. Take this from the International Energy Agency (group of 150 researchers funded by the OECD) for example:

The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned.

The IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays. Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic growth in emerging countries.

Oil demand will grow at an annual rate of 2.2 per cent during the next five years, up from a previous estimate of 2 per cent, to reach 95.8m barrels a day in 2012. China, the Middle East and other emerging countries will lead the increase.

Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, said recently that he thought non-Opec oil production was close to levelling off. He told the FT: “We still see capacity for a little more growth, but pretty modest, and then in our own energy outlook it begins to plateau. And that results then in this call on Opec.”

UK oil production is set to suffer a dramatic decline from today’s 1.7m barrels a day to just 1.0m b/d in 2012, according to the IEA.

So we’re dependant on dictators for any increased oil supply after 2010. Yep nothing to worry about there. Move along….

In his own words – me..!..me..!

Hey – I actually gave you a thumbs up for the link to the Buckley-Chomsky debate – reduced you to (-4) for that one.

I see I got a (-1) when I thanked you for the link! Boy, some people must really hate you!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Helena Clarkus strode into the Senate pavilion on the Ides of March. Outwardly her presence conveyed a quiet air of confidence, but inwardly she was in deep mental turmoil . Why she asked herself? For her successes were so great and so many: she had out flanked her pretenders in the legislature to occupy the premier position in the triumvirate of the sisterhood, she had pacified the plebeians with he popular Working For Familia, she had silenced the Patricians with her controversial Electoral reforms and removed any possibility of a military coup by degrading the famous legions to a peace keeping militia and reducing the once proud navy to just two galleys. But all this was overshadowed by a dreadful foreboding of impending gloom.

A quick movement behind her indicated to her mind -so steeped in the nuances of politics- that she was in immediate danger. She spun around to hear a cry from the Auditor Generale “speak hands for me”. Her body guards had fled, the trusted Stevus Mahari and Magi Wilsona had slunk into the shadows. Philus Goffi looked on with a cruel smile but remained still while alas the great Clarkus was surrounded by the menacing knives of her enemies. Grannius Herald struck first, nursing 91 years of prejudice her dagger went in. Then the spear of Jean Tamiheri and the sword Pedro Dunni and then and only then all hope left her, it was the sight of the loyal Christopheria Trottae thrusting his poison pen at her slowing heart. Alas all was lost she fell whispering those immortal words ET TU TROTTAE.

He is clearly obsessed with violence as a tool.

A quick movement behind her indicated to mind -so steeped in the nuances of politics- that she was in immediate danger. She spun around to hear a cry from the Auditor Generale “speak hands for me”. Her body guards had fled, the trusted Stevus Mahari and Magi Wilsona had slunk into the shadows. Philus Goffi looked on with a cruel smile but remained still while alas the great Clarkus was surrounded by the menacing knives of her enemies. Grannius Herald struck first, nursing 91 years of prejudice her dagger went in. Then the spear of Jean Tamiheri and the sword Pedro Dunni and then and only then all hope left her, it was the sight of the loyal Christopheria Trottae thrusting his poison pen at her slowing heart. Alas all was lost she fell whispering those immortal words ET TU TROTTAE.

A quick movement behind her indicated to mind -so steeped in the nuances of politics- that she was in immediate danger. She spun around to hear a cry from the Auditor Generale “speak hands for me”. Her body guards had fled, the trusted Stevus Mahari and Magi Wilsona had slunk into the shadows. Philus Goffi looked on with a cruel smile but remained still while alas the great Clarkus was surrounded by the menacing knives of her enemies. Grannius Herald struck first, nursing 91 years of prejudice her dagger went in. Then the spear of Jean Tamiheri and the sword Pedro Dunni and then and only then all hope left her, it was the sight of the loyal Christopheria Trottae thrusting his poison pen at her slowing heart. Alas all was lost she fell whispering those immortal words ET TU TROTTAE.

(i got seven thumbsdown last comment..!..)

is there an over-all rating..?..dpf..?

y’know..!

who got most thumbs up..?

(and my specialty..)..who got most thumbs-down..?..)

me..!..me..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

A quick movement behind her indicated to mind so steeped in the nuances of politics that she was in immenint

Such histrionics from Trotter are unsurprising – what continues to amaze me is the MSM dredging him up ad infinitum as a commentator when quite clearly he’s lost what tenuous grip he once had on reality.

Then again, perhaps Trotter has previously mistaken the sight of a few splashes of Pinot Noir for blood, as the bottom lips of distraught Young Nats quivered with sorrow at another loss.

I suspect, though, that he knows full well that “conservatisms most dimwitted and violent adherents” aren’t mainstream party supporters at all, and that a resounding victory of National over Labour at the next election would bring them little joy. Such people seldom vote – unless the National Front happens to field a candidate – and generally confine their violence to small helpless animals and their defactos.

To suggest such people will start looting and rioting over something like a Labour majority is fanciful in the extreme, and shows just how direly in need of a cool flannel and a lie down the poor man is.

Context! It’s all about context!

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/what_are_you_all_doing_up_on_sunday_morning.html#comment-321974

I tend not to hang on his every word so was not aware of that article. Thanks.

But it would be more accurate to say that I was half-right. He has indeed examined the possibilities of environmentalists using violence in future.
He has based that analysis on a lifetime of in-house knowledge and experience within the left and kept the focus on the long-standing political question of “exploring the case for armed struggle” – hardly a paranoid stance, especially in light of the fact that such people (and their fantasies) do exist.

You should note my use of the word ‘AND’ – he has not examined the left wing’s past employment of violence and threats of violence to get their own way, let alone how such tactics appear repeatedly within socialist and anarchist ‘movements’. In your implied confidence that the groups you run with could never do such things here in NZ, you don’t seem to have done so either.

…Trotter indeed has indulged the same paranoid fantasies that you seem to.

I’d be careful chucking the ‘paranoid’ tag around, even if it does seem to you like a winning debating tactic. Not only is it merely pejorative rather than an argument it can also rebound:

What am I doing this Sunday morning? oh I don’t know, freaking out about the fact that we are on the cusp of global recession yet no one in New Zealand’s blogsphere seems to have a clue about it

Perhaps what Trotter should have addressed is the frequency with which left-wing true believers in some cause used the same rationale in the past, and the likelihood that they will do so in the future. After all, aside from the current kerfuffle, we have a steadily growing drumbeat from environmentalists about ‘climate criminals’ who refuse to listen: at what stage will it become necessary to ’stop’ them by appealing to a ‘higher morality’ than democratic ‘lawnorder’ – all for the common good of course.

Um, actually you’re wrong. Trotter indeed has indulged the same paranoid fantasies that you seem to.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4248869a1861.html

http://stuff.co.nz/4253425a1861.html

I made the comment in the “Trotter on Minto” thread that what we were seeing there was double think – whereas this article is Trotter projecting his inner fantasies onto others. What is the point of calling out a “far-left” radical and telling them that political violence is NOT OK, only to reveal his own violent fantasies of the past and recall disturbingly similar actual events.

As Trotter says of Pat McQuarrie – “what was he willing to do to stop the tour”. Well he was willing to threaten to crash a plane into a crowd of spectators for a bloody rugby game, and that threat was the key to achieving one of the objectives of the protest movement. In what way is the motivation different from the current crowd that Minto is running with? Presumably those people also have a cause that is going to make them, perhaps has made them, “do some very dangerous things”.

In twenty years time will a future Chris Trotter-type emerge from the current crop to talk of such things, absolve themselves as “good people” and “decent, caring New Zealanders” who were simply driven to desperate lengths by an oppressive state and the failure of their fellow citizens to heed the call?

It’s just the same old, ‘high-moral-ground’ bullshit that leftists cling to. Their civil rights were infringed by faceless men with batons and charges over ridiculous offences and it’s an outrage? Yes, it was. But now that it’s the police under a Labour government? Less outrage it would seem.

As for the idea that Trotter and co. trampled all over the civil rights of their fellow New Zealanders when they invaded that ground and relied upon a threat of massive violence to get a rugby game canceled?

Naaaah – the idea that that might be ethically unacceptable and outside the bounds of democracy never occurred to any protest group – either then or later. On the contrary, most were and still are proud of that particular effort, and Trotters latter-day thoughts hardly seem like a distancing. The gap-toothed rednecks had been lectured and fully informed about the bad ethical decision they were making in attending the game and they still went ahead anyway: outrageous! As a result, their civil rights would just have to take a backseat to a higher morality – and if those people chose to fight back about such a loss of civil rights such violence could simply be called a pogrom to denigrate and deligitimise them still further – as opposed to the other sides pure and virtuous violence and threats of violence.

Perhaps what Trotter should have addressed is the frequency with which left-wing true believers in some cause used the same rationale in the past, and the likelihood that they will do so in the future. After all, aside from the current kerfuffle, we have a steadily growing drumbeat from environmentalists about ‘climate criminals’ who refuse to listen: at what stage will it become necessary to ’stop’ them by appealing to a ‘higher morality’ than democratic ‘lawnorder’ – all for the common good of course.