Jail and kill your political opponents
June 15th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David FarrarNo I am not talking over Africa or the Middle East, but some of the hysteria in New Zealand. Green MP Gareth Hughes facebooked:
Just spoke at another asset sale protest. Parliament today is voting on it. What do you think about it?
Note Gareth has done nothing wrong. Thee comments just happened on his page.
A Phil Stevens commented:
When you put it together with the latest document to leak from the TPPA proceedings, it spells high treason. Many nations have put ex-leaders to death over similar cases. I don’t know if we need to go quite that far when life imprisonment would suffice.
This comment rather than be denounced as insane hysteria, got liked by a number of people including the President of Greens on Campus at Auckland University. Mr Stevens is not a Green, but seems to be involved with a party of six people called the New Economics Party, which looks like a hard left eco party.
One of the concerns I have is this neo-fascist zealotry that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor, and should be jailed or killed. Never mind that the policy was campaigned on for 11 months and a general election fought on it. Mr Stevens, with support from the Greens on Campus Auckland President, is saying that those who won the election and are implementing the policies they campaigned on should be jailed or worse.
If this is the rhetoric of these people when they lose the election, I worry about what they will call for if they win. They seem to have no capacity to accept that people who disagree with them have good motives. It is that sort of view, which leads to political violence.
Now let’s be very clear that this is by no means a majority view in the Greens. I have a lot of time for many of the Green MPs, and think most are very reasonable people. And the same goes for many of their activists. The Auckland Campaign Chair for the Greens introduced himself to me at Auckland Backbenches and it was good to engage with him. Most people involved in politics I have respect for – they are standing up for what they believe in.
But there is a segment of the hard left/hard green movement who have no tolerance for dissent, for diversity, for respect for the rule of law. It may just be a comment on Facebook – but it is rhetoric that is dangerous. Such comments should not be liked. The person who says them should be told to stop being a fuckwit.
June 15th, 2012 at 7:20 am
I also commented on Hughes’ FB post, wondering why he hadn’t posted a photograph of the protest. I helpfully linked to the blog-post I had just done, based on a photograph e-mailed to me by a by-stander. When you see the photo, you’ll understand why Hughes was too embarrassed to mention that crowd at the People Power Ohariu protest which was supposed to be sending a message to Peter Dunne:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/opposition-to-asset-sales.html
Actually and on second thoughts, yesterday’s protest DID send a message to Peter Dunne; that the vast majority of Ohariu voters really don’t care about where the government seels a minority shareholding in several state-owned assets.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 7:32 am
Are you saying, DPF, that some people who follow politics and comment about it in online forums are idiots?
[DPF: That is not news. When they are an office holder in a party, it is]
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 7:34 am
You’re right to point out this is (hopefully) not a majority view in the Greens. Most, if not all, political parties attract their share of weirdos and it’s very hard for the party or their MPs to control what they post on a blog or Facebook page or tweets as above.
Look at some of the stuff that gets posted on The Standard as an example.
But the Greens do seem to have a higher-than-average share of hard-nose activists.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 7:42 am
Actually – dare I say it – look at some of the stuff that gets posted on here …
[DPF: I agree some of it here is unacceptable. On many occassions however I have demerited or suspended people for posting comments along the lines of so and so should be put to death]
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 7:58 am
I see that Michelle Brinsden not only liked it, she commented, “I agree treason”.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Likewise, I have the feeling that this was pointed out due to Stevens’ political allegiance. Whale Oil probably posts stuff like this all the time (correct me if I’m wrong, as I rarely read his blog) but I don’t see DPF calling him out on his extremism.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:30 am
I thought the Gweens were against imprisonment??
“Prisons don’t work” etc etc “We shouldn’t punish cwiminals” blah blah
How rare that they are now contradicting themselves..
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:31 am
To be fair though, how many Kiwiblog regulars would like to see Cullen put away for a stretch?
[DPF: I think they'd just rather he was given SOE Chairs and Knighthoods!]
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Quislings for US corporate hegemony, like Tim Grosser, invite the kind of comments Farrar is whining about by promoting treaties which by-pass the democratic process by allowing foreign corporate entities to dictate domestic policy through an external quasi-judicial process.
More and more this National government, and their domestic shills, look like the sock puppets of foreign corporate interests.
[DPF: Thank you for proving my point]
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:34 am
@ Longknives – on Planet Green, the only crime that is punishable by imprisonment is not swallowing Green Party hyperbole, such as that spouted by the likes of Gareth Hughes. Just as crossing Helen Clark was Labour’s unforgiveable sin, being a Green Denier is seen as treasonous. Their Eleventh Commondment is “Thou shalt blindly follow the Party Line because the Party knows what is best for you.”.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:34 am
After reading GD the last few days, I’m not sure how much interest you can place in the comments.
Greens walk a fine line. They are moving to try and be a mainstream party, but their traditional supporters are the nutbars, whom they try to pretend aren’t there.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Capitalist Running Dogs, Yoza, that’s the phrase you’re looking for.
It’s a sad example of the depths to which far-lefters have fallen that they have to be instructed in the correct boilerplate language.
Honestly, do right-wing capitalists have to carry that burden now as well?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:42 am
This is why I hate extremists at both ends of the polictical spectrum. There is no tolerance, no understanding and no dialogue. They should be fucking lined up and shot.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:47 am
“the only crime that is punishable by imprisonment is not swallowing Green Party hyperbole”
Someone should mix a big drum of organic Kool-Aid at their next AGM… Though getting close would be mission impossible for the ordinary person- the smell of Cannabis, body odour and stale vegetarian farts would make infiltrating them the ultimate sacrifice.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Indeed. Feral seems the appropriate word.
Nookin
Vote:+1, although it might be a stretch to assume you’re being ironic. Please say that you were.
June 15th, 2012 at 8:51 am
Nookin: I do hope that was intended as irony…
But seriously, the “Greens” are truly dangerous people led, let’s not forget, by two supposedly ex communists, and with Delahunty as another MP; she who ran “training camps” for the activists of whatever loony left outfit she was then involved with not so long ago.
In my short time in parliament I came to regard the “watermelon” label as entirely accurate. One honourable exception is Kevin Hague, who I found to be a thoroughly decent and reasonable guy. But then look what happend to Trotsky, and later anyone who was perceived by Stalin to be a “deviationist” or several other words ending in -ist.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:53 am
Longknives, Heh, great timing.. LOL
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Tom and David
I surrender. Yes, it was irony. Sometimes I enjoy a bit of black humour. And no, that was not a racist comment.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:01 am
“..Their Eleventh Commondment is “Thou shalt blindly follow the Party Line because the Party knows what is best for you.”…”
wouldn’t that apply more to the blind followers of a party trying to sell our economic sovereignty to rapacious american corporations..
..(with their legions of lawyer-scumbags..?..)
..and those followers being happy about such an act of utter treason..just because their party is doing it…
(treason..def:..’the crime of betraying one’s country’..)
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Heh. That reminds me of what I saw on a US blog when a poll was released by a Democrat leaning group showing that Romney could win 20% of the Black vote in North Carolina if an election were held today – which prompted this reader response:
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Fortunately, it doesn’t invoke Godwin’s law to refer to Stalin and Robespierre, two left leaning leaders with similar ideas of how to treat one’s enemies.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:24 am
I think you are too kind, DPF. The basic philosophy of the left is that a select few know more about our lives than we do. This allows them to tax and spend to their hearts content. Dissent (aka freedom) is not accepted well. The examples you are describing today are a matter of degree, not of basic philosophy.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Nookin at 8:42 am: So glad I wasn’t drinking my coffee, the keyboard would be covered.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Many politicians seem unable to learn from history.
When the economic situation gets a bit tight there has always been the tendancy to blame someone for the mess. Add to this the elatively new ability to communicate via text, email etc.
The 1930′s has many lessons for us today. As times got tougher and tougher the extremists gained more notice and credability. These days the distribution of news is far more extant that 80 years ago. Back then govern,emts carried on in secret all the time – but these days transparency is more important.
Frankly the countries involved in the TPPA thing are only asking for trouble keeing the things secret. Persoanlly I have some sympathy for those who think that such agreements that include foreign companies being able to sue for changes in the law is treason. Its simply handing over control to large internationals. Its another arm of globalisation and globlisation hasnt done anything positive for new zealand that i can see.
How anyone could think that handing over the effective control of something like the health system to international pharmaceutical manufacturers is a good thing is beyond me – and I think such actions by themselves are not in the interests of the country or any of its citizens. I can see that possibly it might be suitable if say the US opened up its agriculture and food sectors – but thats about as likely as flying to the moon unaided.
The US, Europe and Japan have regarded food supply as a stragetic activity since the end of WW2 and that aint changing.
One of the activities that the TPPA will stop is parallel importing – and thats only in the interests of the multinationals and serves no possible good for NZ.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Philip Ure said
Who’s doing that Phil. You shouldn’t listen to Jane Kelsey; she’s not exactly a neutral now, is she?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Before jailing and killing comes silencing. There’s a very good example of this in the following article – Racism or Silence? What’s Wrong With This Picture?. It concerns a TV interview with a white guy about a recent arson attack:
Ouch! He looks like a typical working class joe, but even the writer has to reset the debate frame before he can comment further:
So with the usual, I-am-not-a-racist-and-do-not-agree-with-this-man schtick out of the way, he can get to his main point about this scene
I’d say that this is what we’re really seeing in DPF’s story, and as the writer in the link finishes up:
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:45 am
ok stock…so why has the australian govt told them to fuck off with their attempted sovereignty-takeover…?
..and why are the americans even screaming about it..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2012/obama-team-wants-radical-new-powers-for-multinational-corporations/
(excerpt:..
“..The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.
It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment – and reveals the Obama administration’s advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues.
But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal.
That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings…”
basically..the corporations are trying to take over the world….
..and our panting puppy excuses for political-leadership..
..are just drooling to sign on the dotted line…
..but you are a good little sheepie..eh stock..?
..you won’t question this edict from yr masters/betters…
..eh..?
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:49 am
KS: I know you know this, but philu’s a 62 year old man who has yet to grow up and mature. Waste of time discussing anything with him.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 9:57 am
I don’t know why you are complaining philu the left opened the door to people appealing to international bodies and the left loves the UN.
Were you too doped up at the time to realize corporations would quickly follow suit.
If lefties didn’t have double standards they would have no standards.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 10:12 am
Get a grip guys – you’ve got one idiot from some obscure political group on a facebook page saying “we shouldn’t kill them, we should imprison them’ and somehow that gets translated into a ridiculous generalisation of “leftists want to kill their political opponents”.
Likewise the example Tom Hunter has above – he has a point that the journo’s response to the guy basically calling for apartheid is pathetic – but there’s no evidence given to suggest the journo is a leftist. It seems a case of “I don’t agree with you, therefore you are a leftist”.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 10:25 am
This comments thread is a case study in irony. Set the political tribalism and hyperbole boosters to 150% captain!
“But there is a segment of the hard left/hard green movement who have no tolerance for dissent, for diversity, for respect for the rule of law”
Sorry DPF – as you well know this also occurs on the right, it is just some people’s response to politics. We don’t hold mainstream right wing parties like National responsible because a handful of nutty rightwingers like Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik kill innocent people. The key issue here is their nuttiness not their distorted view of politics.
@David Garrett
Vote:In the spirit of the point I think DPF was trying to make about taking the nonsense and hyperbole out of political debate. I commend you on your positive comment about your political opponent Kevin Hague (third on the list and the obvious next male leader of the Greens) and ignore the bit where you describe the party that 11% of your fellow New Zealanders support as ‘dangerous’, ‘communist’ and akin to Stalin.
June 15th, 2012 at 10:27 am
“One of the concerns I have is this neo-fascist zealotry that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor, and should be jailed or killed. Never mind that the policy was campaigned on for 11 months and a general election fought on it.”
“Yoza (113) Says:
June 15th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Quislings for US corporate hegemony…
More and more this National government, and their domestic shills, look like the sock puppets of foreign corporate interests.”
“[DPF: Thank you for proving my point]“
The National Party did not mention anything about selling out NZ sovereignty in back room deals.
I’m guessing there is a long line of professional/coordinator class parasites that see their futures tied to representing foreign entities as they strip mine the New Zealand economy. I also struggle to understand why these mercenaries should feel secure as they serve those foreign interests at the expense of an increasingly disenfranchised majority.
I understand completely why the likes of Farrar and Grosser do not want something as messy as the democratic process interfering with corporate profiteering.
[DPF: You really do speak shit. First of all I have blogged many times my criticisms of some of what the US is seeking in the TPP negotiations.
Secondly the TPP negotiations were known before the election, and the investor state provisions are not unique - we have them in our FTA with China which Labour signed]
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Yoza:
‘The democratic process’. Oh, you mean like an election that National won?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 10:42 am
The comunists found that taking kids away from their parents was far more effective way of controlling disidents.
And I do recall a law change that made reasonable parenting illegal assault.
So the Greens could stop this tommorrow, and quite easily. All they need to do is go to the schools National MPs send their kids and find some teachers who agree with them. Then, those teachers report that the kids are being smacked at home. CYFS then takes the kids away.
The downside of this is of course that John Key would be forced to agree that good parents are being criminalised by the law – so I’m guessing these tatics are a few years away yet.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 10:46 am
anyone of you sheepies like to try and engage the half-brains you are laboured with..
..and ask yrslves:..’gee..!..i wonder why the aussies told them to fuck off..?’
..eh..?
..and i don’t actually recall national campaigning on ceding our governmental-authority/sovereignty to international corporations..
..i must have been away that day..
..eh..?
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Well Phil, you certainly weren’t at work..
..eh..?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:12 am
not even a half a brain to engage to attempt to answer that aussies-question..eh..?
..baaa..!!..
..eh..?
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Perhaps I should jump in here and provide a little perspective, since the jackals are merrily ascribing all sorts of motives to my comment to Gareth here. I don’t advocate killing anyone. I pointed out that historically angry people have done this to leaders who acted against their nations’ best interests, and suggested that stiff punishment should be held out as a deterrent to corruption and malfeasance on the part of public officials. I don’t condone vigilantism, and I would never suggest that anyone be deprived of due process. However, any government is tasked with a duty of care and this one regards New Zealand’s sovereignty as just another piece of chattel to be flogged off for thirty pieces of silver. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I am unapologetically in favour of requiring governments to act foremost to safeguard our rights to self determination. Selling assets with the most vapourous of mandates while at the same time acquiescing to a free trade agreement containing provisions which would allow foreign investors to sue for commercial gain is most assuredly not going to work in our favour, and can be demonstrably cited as counter to sovereignty. The act of treason is understood to be a betrayal of one’s country, so how is one to reconcile political acts which are done with the intent to reduce New Zealand’s sovereign control of its own affairs?
Let’s be honest with one another about the motivation for these sales, and the TPPA: The international banking industry needs hard assets to shore up its ever-expanding exposure to risky speculation in derivatives and other bets which are rapidly going bad (hello Europe). They acquire these assets when prices are low (during recessions and depressions) and typically by means of debt securitisation. New Zealand’s debt problem is not public borrowing. It is private debt and an imbalance of trade. So Key and National are basically lying through their teeth when they cite fiscal prudence and returning to surplus as an imperative for selling assets. What they’re really doing is aiding the ultimate transfer of our real wealth (not milk powder) and sovereignty to foreign ownership and control. Conspiracy theorists like to call it the “New World Order” and mutter about the Rothschilds, but you don’t really need all the cloak and dagger drama to acknowledge the facts on the ground. It’s about consolidation.
Anyway, I’m perfectly happy to go on record as saying that we should have a constitutional framework which places sovereignty foremost and holds politicians to account in any instance where they act to diminish our ability to manage our own affairs. Life sentences may sound extreme, but I’m sure we can work out parole for good behaviour. I will note, too, that some of the rhetoric which emanates from quarters more tolerant of outright corporate ownership of our fair shores is far more vehement and scathing than my own.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:20 am
“..(treason..def:..’the crime of betraying one’s country’..)
Who’s doing that Phil…”
those willing/wanting to give away our rights to govern/sovereignty to international corporations..
..you fill in the fucken names…eh..?
and seriously..!..none of you on the right care about this…?
..can’t/won’t see how we are being sold down the river…?
..this is nothing to do with fucken left or right..
,.it is bigger than that..
..it is about us as a little country..against the world…
..and these craven bastards want to make us a vassal/compliant/cowed-market/country for international corporations..
..by stripping away our rights to govern as a country..our essential sovereignty…
..and nobody on the right gives a flying fuck about that..?
..that has me gobsmacked….
..i expect trans-ideological opposition to this ceding of our sovereignty…
..this act of fucken treason…
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:23 am
And to Nookin: You’ll get a centrist to do the shooting, I assume?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Shorter phil.stevens: I merely want politican given life sentences after a fair trial because they acted on a clearly mandate from the electorate. Why are you attacking me? It’s all the fault of the bankers!
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Sam Buchanan: actually, after DPF’s post on the Christchurch Housing crisis, I’m wondering if *I’m* a leftist.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Well, perhaps we could compromise.
If we get to put the Clark administration on trial for stealing taxpayers money and changing the law to cover their tracks, and Sue Bradford on trial for giving goverment even more unchecked power over families, then you can put John Key on trial.
Fair’s fair.
Come to think of it, why is it so evil to sell assets on the open market for a fair price, but it’s just fine to pay millions over fair valuation for a train company (worthless because Toll kept the highly profitable trucking arm)?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Well, when it happens you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Well, Redbaiter can get testy sometimes.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
There is a disturbing increase in extremism in the Greeny niche. You look at a group like Sea Shepherd which basically condones violence and intimidation, and I personally get scared for the future when Green party members openly support this group.
We saw another horrible example from one a different philosophy – the massacre by Breivik in Norway last year. The jury is still out on Breivik’s sanity. But the way extremists on both sides of the political spectrum think bear similarities. Crimes are justified for a “greater purpose”, etc. The scary thing is that this is very much a basic philosophy of “Green” people – law-breaking to further their aims.
I fear that it won’t be that long before Breivik-like nutcase Greenies take things too far (and in some perhaps lesser known instances around the world it could be argued they already have).
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I had a debate via FB page a while back with an old mate of mine from school. He is an ardent greenie. I posted something about the fact that ‘the science isnt settled, lets have a reasoned and reasonable debate instead of abuse if we dont believe’ – and he abused me.
The irony was utterly lost on him. Like Dubbyas “if you aint for us, youre agin us” statement, you believe fervently and with passion, or you are a denyer. There is no half way house.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
David@Tokyo-
Vote:Agreed. I think we saw how bloody dangerous the extreme left are with the release of those tapes regarding the Urewera business. Those nutters were New Zealand’s own ‘Anders Breiviks in waiting’…
June 15th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Funny how the best the right can come up with is “these left-wing lunatics are dangerous because while they haven’t done anything, they will sometime in the future.”
Far as I can recall, all the activists killed in political violence in New Zealand in the last few decades were leftists – two in bombings (Rainbow Warrior and Trades Hall) and one run over on a picket line.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I have no problem with them saying such things, because, as DPF noted the other day, daylight is the best disinfectant.
I do worry, however, that they are sincere about the treason bit. Because once you begin describing decisions like asset sales as treason, the end result can be horrific circumstances such as this and this and even this.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Sam Buchanan,
and the Rainbow Warrior causualty was murdered on the order of a socialist French government! Your example re the picket line death is, however, appalling. That case was tried twice, and the end result is that the alleged offender was acquitted. I know of at least one senior High Court judge who is of the opinion that the case should never have even come to tiral. To call it politicial IN ANY WAY is just obscene.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Here’s some proper hating(pdf) of an opponent.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
FE Smith – I wasn’t apportioning blame, I was pointing out that the right’s fantasy of a violent left is just that. There are no leftist killing their political opponents, taking their children away or carrying out massacres.
BTW – Mitterand was a centrist, not a leftist, whatever the name of his party.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
I’d simply say that the comments DPF complains about were quite mild by Kiwiblog standards.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Sam Buchanan,
Rubbish. I can provide any number of examples, going back 150 years now. As I commented on KB yesterday, the rhetoric of the left is violent and repressive, as are their actions.
And you mentioned the waterside death as ‘political violence’. It wasn’t. It was an accident, unintentional, undesired and certainly not politically motivated. It is n event for which the deceased must be given most of the blame for acting in an illegal manner to get her political veiws across. The Police must also accept some blame, but that has already been debated on KB.
Oh, and Mitterand and his party were socialists.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
“There are no leftist killing their political opponents, taking their children away or carrying out massacres.”
Hmmmm- Either you are taking the piss, you are completely fucking brainwashed or you are as thick as pigshit and have absolutely no knowledge of History…
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Longknives – you have no knowledge of grammar, I said ‘are’ not ‘was’ and we are talking about New Zealand.
Even so far as history goes, the last time New Zealand leftists took out their opponents was in the 1940s when the Stalinist dickheads in the Communist party decided Hitler was a threat after all, and joined the New Zealand armed forces.
So if leftists are going about killing their opponents where are all the dead right-wingers of recent times? Being secretly taking away to unmarked graves and their murders covered up? Or whisked off in black helicopters in the middle of the night?
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
There was no leftist killing their political opponents??
Sam what are you trying to say?? You accuse me of having “no knowledge of grammar” yet either way your post makes no sense at all….
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
You seem to have understood it enough to reply to it.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Sam- At least I know the difference between an ‘Anarchist’ and a ‘Communist’….From looking at your childish blog it appears you are massively confused about your political idealogy….
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
What blog?
And actually ‘communist’ does include many anarchists – I think you are thinking of the difference between Marxists and anarchists. Communism pre-dates Marxism.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“actually communist does include many anarchists”
Then I suggest you buy a dictionary…
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
From Oxford on-line dictionary:
“communism
Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmjʊnɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. ”
That definitely covers the views of many anarchists.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
BTW – if you could provide me with a link to my blog I’d be obliged. I contributed to one years ago for a bit, but I thought the hosting had lapsed years back. If there’s a more recent one, I’d love to know what I’ve been writing about behind my own back.
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Wrong- Look up ‘Anarchy’ champ…
Vote:June 15th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Yoza – it’s Groser (one “S”). At least get that right.
Vote: