About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 4, 2005 9:11am by David Farrar

Trevor vs the Greens

Trevor Loudon responds to Frog’s criticism of his history of Keith Locke.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment29

Uncategorised

Related Stories

Green Bashing
Blog Bits
Odds and Ends

Comments (29)

Login to comment or vote

side show bob

My cattle dogs have more clues then this clown.MMP has a lot to answer for.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 9:29am
Russell Brown

Having read the posts in question, I can exclusively reveal to a shocked nation that on the evidence they provide Trevor Loudon has been, is and probably always will be a remarkably pompous and self-important man. Does the local RW blogosphere have any plans to come out of post-election parody mode?

Cheers,
RB
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 10:47am
dim

Here’s an odd little excerpt . . .

Where is the apology to the people of New Zealand for campaigning against our Frigate’s and our Air Force Strike wing? Locke can’t claim he did this to promote peace, because he has a long history of supporting war when it suits him.

Locke does seem to have spent much of his life as a classic useful idiot, but in this paragraph Louden seems to think Locke should apologise for campaigning on behalf of standard Green party policy. Comparing the purchase of naval frigates, or the scrapping of the airforce combat wing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the ruralisation of Cambodia seems to indicate a spectacular lack of perspective.

I’m sure Keith Locke didn’t know that Pol Pot would be as bad as he was . . . Before WW2 many Europeans backed Hitler. They didn’t know how barbaric Hitler was going to be either, yet history still rightly judges them extremely harshly.

The post is also in serious violation of Godwins Law. Doesn’t anyone on the internet study any period of history outside Central Europe, 1933-45?

Why should Locke be judged any more leniently?

Hmmmm . . . good question! Of course, Locke didn’t vote for Pol Pot, or follow any of his orders, or help him exterminate millions of civilians, but I guess I’m just splitting hairs.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 11:09am
exocet

“Trevor Loudon has been, is and probably always will be a remarkably pompous and self-important man”.

Takes one to know one Russell.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 11:40am
Craig Ranapia

Now now, exocet – on the subject of self-parody, I will defer to any Auckland blogger who dedicates several thousand words over two posts to his rage at being sold an espresso WITHOUT A FUCKING CREMA in evil Wellywood. Oh, the humanity…
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 1:15pm
Shawn

“Having read the posts in question, I can exclusively reveal to a shocked nation that on the evidence they provide Trevor Loudon has been, is and probably always will be a remarkably pompous and self-important man.”

Thats ammusing coming from a pompous twit known for fact free propaganda on behalf of Leftist rags like the Loser.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 1:25pm
Shawn

“or help him exterminate millions of civilians”

Yes he did. Anyone who publicly supported the regime helped by that support to facilitate the regime’s crimes. That includes toilet scum like Noam Chomsky, who also supported the regime.

Over the last one hundred years Leftists have supported the greatest genocide in human history, onw hundred and fifty million and still counting. The gutless attempts to excuse this crime and excuse its supporters are just sick, but sadly what I have come to expect from the Leftist slime who pollute the West.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 1:43pm
Tane

Shawn, can you please provide some evidence for your comments regarding Chomsky?

Also, I think you’ll find that while Locke probably mistakenly gave more support to the incoming regime than he should have done without knowing what it would be like, you’ll find that as soon as it became clear what was happening he opposed it. The same can’t be said for the realpolitikers on the right, who backed Pol Pot all the way.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 4:29pm
dim

That includes toilet scum like Noam Chomsky, who also supported the regime.

Heh. This is an old chestnut. Lets see you provide a single sentence from any of Chomskys writings that prove he supported the Khmer Rouge regime.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 4:40pm
James

All Socialists are,by definition, supporters of criminal anti human actions.Socialism requires the violation of the individual rights of people to proceed, it can’t achieve jack without applying force against people or their property.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 5:30pm
moonbat

All Capitalists are, by definition, supporters of criminal anti-human actions. Capitalism requires the violation of the individual right to self determination, because the inevitable concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals condems the rest of humanity to debt servitude.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 5:43pm
James

How so moonbat? Capitalism has spread the wealth around far more than Socialism ever did.Before wealth can be redistributed it first must be created . Are you seriously claiming that Socialist countries have created more wealth in them than the Capitalist West? Quit now while you just appear a disgruntled fool. 🙂
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 5:50pm
dim

Why I believe it was Noam Chomsky who wrote that Capitalism – like Communism – is an interesting idea, but we don’t know if either system would work, because no one’s ever come remotely close to trying either of them.

The United States and Japan – two of Capitalism great success stories – are both nations with massive state involvement in every sector of the economy. The state is by far the largest employer and buyer of goods and services in all the so-called ‘free market’ economies (most of which also have massive trade tarrifs and domestic subsidies).

The Soviet Empire and its subject states don’t even vaguely fit any of the definitions of a communist state, any more than ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ was a democracy. They were fuedal states in which the majority of the population were slaves – literally, in the Chinese, Cambodian and Soviet models.
One of the first criteria for a communist or socialist system is equality – its absurd to describe a totalitarian dictatorship as ‘communist’, just as it was absurd to imagine that states such as Suhartos Indonesia or Mobutus Zaire were democratic or capitalist.

Theres food for thought in Marxs original writing about the evolution of a communist state – he felt that the boundless inventiveness and wealth creation of the capitalist system would eventually lead to a classless society (after, he mused, many centuries of class struggle).

This might well be untrue, and if he was right then its clear we’re still many centuries away. But its worth thinking about such current fields as AI, industrial nanotechnology and efficient solar power, and considering what they will do to our current economic notions of wealth, scarcity, energy and the value of work.
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 5:58pm
RWDB

Pop quiz. Guess who said this:

“the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors.”
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 8:15pm
RWDB

“its absurd to describe a totalitarian dictatorship as communist”

Wrong, Marx said the exact opposite: “Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that.”

That’s from:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/09/12.htm#102
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 8:23pm
dim

Hi RWBD,

I fail to see the relevence of your Chomsky quote: he’s discussing the atrocities that took place after the overthrow of Lon Nols dictatorship – inaccurately – and doesn’t come remotely close to endorsing the Khmer Rouge regime.

And did you actually READ the link you provided re Marx, or did you just google ‘Marx and Dictator’?
0 0
Report
December 4, 2005 10:37pm
woppo

“And did you actually READ the link you provided re Marx”

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt & assume that he did – but you can bet that he moved his lips while he read it.
As for this ongoing wittering on about Pol Pot – let’s not forget who overthrew the Khmer Rouge.
Yep, good ol’ communist Vietnam.
AND they’ve sorted out Gary Glitter, too.
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 2:36am
exocet

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the energy that Chumpsky supporters expend leaping to the defence of their idol. What is it about him that leftists love so much?
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 8:22am
moonbat

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the energy that righties expend dreaming up silly names for people they do not understand. What is it about righties that they love doing this?
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 8:52am
Russell Brown

Now now, exocet – on the subject of self-parody, I will defer to any Auckland blogger who dedicates several thousand words over two posts to his rage at being sold an espresso WITHOUT A FUCKING CREMA in evil Wellywood. Oh, the humanity…

Heh. Actually, most of the several thousand words were those of readers from all over the world – UK, US, Switzerland, Korea, Australia – who were remarkably exercised on the coffee-quality issue. I’ve had another dozen or so urgent emails since. Should I inform them all of your displeasure at their frivolous behaviour?

Damn. You’ve got me going now. I’ll have to have another cup; that’s three. In the spirit of Mr Loudon, I demand an apology.

Cheers,
RB
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 9:01am
exocet

Would you like a cracker moonbat?

Mind you, I’m SO pleased to se the classical chumpsky defence ‘you don’t like him cos you don’t UNDERSTAND him’ dredged up.

Chumpskylove really is becoming a religion – the new scientology??
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 9:33am
Cadmus

Communism is evil, so is Laiseez-faire Capitalism. That is why Communism reared it’s head to oppose a select few having everything, Land etc. Which was mainly Royalty & their hangers on.
I’m all for free enterprise as long as there are “some” rules and regulation, finding the right balance is the hardest part.
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 9:40am
Craig Ranapia

RB:

You latte-quaffing ponces should all stop bitching – just try being a tea drinker who has had to endure baristas whose tea preparation technique is as follows:

1) Take tea. Preferably stale, either too much (in case of leaf) or not enough (when using bags).

2) Place in a pot carefully designed to desposit 75% of the liquid anywhere except your cup, even when the spout isn’t chipped.

3) Take pot to espresso machine and sandblast contents with a jet of scalding water and/or steam.

4) Correct performance of stage three makes resulting brew impossible to drink without permanent scarring before it becomes a rather toxic variety of wood stain.

I’m going to have to go hit the stash of first flush F.T.G.F.O.P Rohini Darjeeling from Tea Total to suppress the painful memories… Thanks Russell! 🙂
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 10:07am
Lance

Cadmus wrote
“I’m all for free enterprise as long as there are “some” rules and regulation, finding the right balance is the hardest part”.

Noooooooo!!!!!
I can’t agree with something Cadmus said. It can’t be allowed. How did this happen?
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 11:42am
James

Hold your Cadmus kissing a minute there Lance. He also said this…

“Communism is evil, so is Laiseez-faire Capitalism. That is why Communism reared it’s head to oppose a select few having everything, Land etc. Which was mainly Royalty & their hangers on.”

If it was mainly Royality and there hangers on that had everything then how is that Laiseez-faire capitalism? It sounds more like Autocracy to me.Capitalism has spread the wealth about to even our so called poorest in this country.If they have food to eat, a roof over their heads,money in the bank and a job, that puts them amoungst the richest 8% of people on Earth.Indeed the lifestyles lived today by our “poorest” would have been envied by Kings and Queens of the past…
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 12:05pm
David

When are the socialists going to realise that most wealth today is CREATED. That means it is not taken from some finite pool to the detriment of others.(Yawn, old boring and wrong arguement)It is created and ADDED to the pool. More often the created wealth also creates benefits for others. Or so say the 35 staff Ive hired since I started a new business 5 years ago….I suspect thsi is what McKinnon was on about when he stated trade was a better goal FIRST than democracy.
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 12:34pm
Cadmus

James,

Laissez-fair still has to have a structure to work under, even though with “limited” rules & regulations.

Easy, even under a Monarch you can do what you like to make money! but of course they make the rules, and want a good share of your profits.

Ever been the country of Columbia? you know the place of coffee and other stuff. Same sort of rules apply.
8 or 9 families own all the land, control the govt, and make the rules for business, and living.
Only 5% of the pop have any wealth. 15% any skills and the rest it’s a dog eat dog society. Were a trip to the local tip to forage for anything that maybe of benefit to eat, us, sell, or trade on, is the high lite of the day for many. You know the sort of ACT party style of running a country, well that might be a bit tough on my part.

You see you have a big problem when only a certain group owns all the land, and it’s resources. The peasants do get upset and revolt, thats why I believe a fair deal for all parties is needed in a just society.

You see James that is why we don’t want Laissez-faire Capitalism in NZ, it is just as evil as communism. even you admit….

“Capitalism has spread the wealth about to even our so called poorest in this country.If they have food to eat, a roof over their heads,money in the bank and a job, that puts them amoungst the richest 8% of people on Earth.”

Yes, controlled Capitalism as I mentioned. Rules of which were put down by democratic elected representatives, on behalf of the NZ people by Labour & National govt’s with a social conscience. I have know problem with that. I bet you do?
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 1:42pm
James

Cadmus said: “Laissez-fair still has to have a structure to work under, even though with “limited” rules & regulations.”

No argument from me but what rules and how far reaching? And to achieve what ends? I belive in strong Government…but small Government as well.Government that can carry out its legitimate function of protecting our individual rights from violation…but not one that trys to “equalize” everthing up in spite of the actions or non actions of the people concerened.

You said…”You see you have a big problem when only a certain group owns all the land, and it’s resources. The peasants do get upset and revolt, thats why I believe a fair deal for all parties is needed in a just society.”

But thats what capitalism has done! Its bought land ownership to millions who would never have had it under any other system.Looking out my window here I see hundreds of properties privately owned by Mr and Mrs NZ who were made wealthy by Capitalism and could then buy land.

And are you trying to use Columbia as an example of what happens under Laissez-faire? Since when has Columbia been a free market country? Pull the other one!

Your controlled capitalism is just a “mixed economy” which allows business to stagger along while constntly being hampered by red tape and bullshit.The irony is thats its the poorest and most desperate that are hit hardest by all this while “big business ” is protected from competition and innovation from newcomers who can’t get started thanks to all the crap they have to deal with.Its the free market that empowers the little guy and keeps the big boys on their toes.Your solution will just make the worst off even worse off!
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 2:08pm
err..

“Its the free market that empowers the little guy and keeps the big boys on their toes.”

That doesn’t seem to tally too well with reality, however. Look at Microsoft – I know numerous people working for small IT companies who (being computer people) refer to them as the “Eye of Sauron”. You’re fine as long as you’re small enough not to register as a threat, but if they spot you then you’ll either get bought out (if you’re lucky) or stomped on from a great height by a company with deeper pockets than many nations (if you’re not). Either way, not good for competition.

Software is an area where small start-up companies realistically do have an opportunity to take on the big boys because the resources involved in building a great product are all human – manufacturing and distribution costs are virtually nil these days compared to development time. Most other industries have a much higher barrier to entry for a small business, yet even in IT your best chance of independent survival is marking out new ground before the big boys get there, rather than actually competing with them.
0 0
Report
December 5, 2005 2:22pm

« Coddington on Hunt

Kiwi Carnival is back »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
A win for democracy
General Debate 04 June 2026
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
General Debate 02 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour
Set housing outcomes not outputs

Recent Posts

General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026
Which language should be used first? 1 June 2026
The SNP thief 1 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 04 June 2026
leoj
General Debate 04 June 2026
David Garrett
General Debate 04 June 2026
Southern Raider
General Debate 04 June 2026
MCōs
General Debate 04 June 2026
artemisia
General Debate 04 June 2026
MCōs
Meet the Greens – ACC
gravedodger
General Debate 04 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
imalwaysright
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
Yabster
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
MCōs
General Debate 04 June 2026
Scott

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
Michael Laws Exposes A Flaw In The Proposed Council Law Changes.
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The irony of El Niño peaking over NZ as Government kills Ministry of Environment and does secret deals with Big Polluters
The Daily Blog
Open Mike 04/06/2026
The Standard
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A lot of fuss about a simple Bill – its purpose (to make English an official language) is spelled out in 22 words
Point of Order
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d