Robertson to win Wellington Central candidacy

Written By: all_your_base - Date published: 9:02 pm, November 11th, 2007 - 74 comments
Categories: labour - Tags: labour

Charles Chauvel has withdrawn his nomination for Wellington Central.

This leaves Grant Robertson the uncontested Labour candidate, likely to be confirmed on November 17th.

Chauvel will instead seek to re-enter Parliament by means of the Party list.

Related Posts

74 comments on “Robertson to win Wellington Central candidacy ”

Comments are now closed

Bryce Edwards 1

11 November 2007 at 10:37 pm

It certainly sounds like the party hierarchy (ie H1 and H2) have put Chauvel in his place. I can imagine they didn’t think much of his threats to resign from the Labour Party when he didn’t make Cabinet in the recent reshuffle.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
mardypants 2

11 November 2007 at 11:58 pm

I haven’t had first-hand dealings with Charles but know several others that have and they’ve all spoken very highly of him. He mis-spoke recently, his enthusiasm got the better of him and it looks like he’s paid a price.

That aside, I’m not unhappy with the outcome. I’ve had a fair bit to do with Grant Robertson and think he’s easily one of the most talented and decent blokes I’ve worked with.

He’s certainly got plenty of smarts, but it’s not just his brain that I think makes him a strong candidate, it’s the fact that he’s honest, open-minded and genuine. He’s apparently crap at cricket, not that you’d know it since he’s on about it enough, and despite having seen every other NZ band since ’78, he’s not exactly tuneful… but, he’s a great partner and mate and will make a fine parliamentarian.
Santa Claws 3

12 November 2007 at 9:39 am

Well, I guess Chauvel is hoping for a better list place than 44th this time, and needing to wait for an aging MP to be bought out of parliament before he can get in.

After all, he ticks all the boxes for Labour list status

– Unionist (Hotel Workers Union even)
– Princes St veteran, therefore experienced in the dirty underbelly of Labour)
– Long term connection to H1
– Labour party member since 15 (and many roles in The Party)
– Lawyer
– Homosexual (and Rainbow Section co-chair)
– Father of 2yo son
– Recipient of Labour favours (Meridian Energy director 2002-2005 – good thing he bailed for the election and didn’t get tarred with the disconnection brush)
– Managed to reduce Dunne’s majority in OB to ‘only’ 7,702
– Stood against Bill Birch (!)
– Son of Pacific Islander

Its hard to think of a more perfect Labour MP CV – I guess Maori rather than Tahitian descent would be better, but thats hardly something that can be changed.
mardypants 4

12 November 2007 at 9:46 am

Thanks for doing the deep under-cover Santa. Heaven help Labour if they attract such talented and experienced candidates. Far better to have blow-ins like Key?
Robinsod 5

12 November 2007 at 1:33 pm

DPF – Claws! I didn’t see you on teh telly but I’ll try to find it on the interweb eh? I see you’ve got your research unit to get the Chavel fact sheet out asap. Do you have one on me yet?
Santa Claws 6

12 November 2007 at 1:58 pm

Mardypanties – Nothing much you couldn’t find on Chuck’s offical website. I assume you know the link?

Robespierre – I see you’ve been bailed after the weekend.

Really, I wonder if a lifetime spent in the Labour and Union backrooms is a suitable qualification to run the country? The voters of Ohariu Belmont obviously didn’t think so.

At least Chauvel has done something else with his legal career though. I see that well known leftie, Prof Hodge is proposing that a real lawyer be AG. Maybe Chauvel would have the balls to actually do the job, compared to Cullen’s habit of dumping the tough decisions on the SG.

Here’s a list that Matt McCarten provided of HWU honcho’s who’ve made it into parliament

Taito Phillip Field
Rick Barker
Lianne Dalziel
Mark Gosche
Mark Peck
Laila Harre
Matt Robson
Willie Jackson
Dave Hereora
Sue Moroney
Darien Fenton
Charles Chauvel

What a dynamic crowd who have really done wonders for NZ eh?

Here’s McCarten’s comment

“Now of course it would have been the greatest coup ever to have these MPs regularly meeting as a group, strategising on tactics to win benefits for working people. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen. In fact some of them despise each other.”

Oh dear!
Matthew Pilott 7

12 November 2007 at 2:09 pm

“Really, I wonder if a lifetime spent in the Labour and Union backrooms is a suitable qualification to run the country? The voters of Ohariu Belmont obviously didn’t think so.”

Only an ignorant muppet would think this comment holds any semblance of intelligence.

Chauvel took a whopping bite out of Dunne’s majority in the last election. To do that against what is probably the safest seat for any incumbent in NZ isn’t something to piss on, unless you’re thick as pigshit.
Michele Cabiling 8

9 January 2008 at 11:08 am

Mardypants wrote:

“Heaven help Labour if they attract such talented and experienced candidates. Far better to have blow-ins like Key?”

Matthew Pilott quotes Santa Claws:

“Really, I wonder if a lifetime spent in the Labour and Union backrooms is a suitable qualification to run the country? The voters of Ohariu Belmont obviously didn’t think so.”

then makes the predictable leftard personal attack: “Only an ignorant muppet would think this comment holds any semblance of intelligence.”

The Labour Party caucus in recent years boasts two MPs (Dover Samuels and Jim Sutton) who have ever employed another New Zealander with their own money. The balance consists of teachers and trade unionists. Some, like Phil Goff, have been both.

How representative are these people of ordinary New Zealanders who operate small businesses and work for a living? Not very, I venture to suggest!

These are people who produce or create nothing, and have always lived off others, irrespective of productivity or personal ability. Teachers (including university lecturers) live off the taxpayer in comfortable sinecures from which they are not dismissed for poor performance. Union reps live off the union dues of members, and mostly appear to travel around in member-funded cars from one talk-fest and slap-up lunch to another.

For both these groups, wealth is not something to be created which is what those of us who live in the real world understand, but something to be stolen from the productive and redistributed.
Phil 9

9 January 2008 at 11:17 am

I disagree Matthew – there are lots of safer seats around the country. I can think of one or two where (to paraphrase Jeffrey Archer in ‘First among equals’) they don’t count the Labour party vote – they weigh it.
The PM’s electorate, perhaps? Anything in South Auckland? Oh, then there is Southland and Ilam for the Nats, Jonkey’s place too…

Additionally, in the three years leading up the the election, that particular part of Wellington (Oh-Belmont) went through some reasonable demographic change (plus, I moved in!).
I also suspect that a number of voters saw a vote for CC not as necessarily a vote for Labour, but as a vote of ‘no confidence’ in Peter Dunne – my partner at the time was one of those.
Michele Cabiling 10

9 January 2008 at 11:54 am

Anyone Labour puts up will lose ignominiously to former ACT MP and soon-to-be National Party candidate, Stephen Franks.

What we need are more “citizen-politicians” who have made their mark in private enterprise and want to “put something back” (Franks is a corporate lawyer who gave up a high six figure annual income for a backbencher’s salary when an ACT MP) rather than professional politicians off the Labour-Union Axis production line.

Steve Franks is hugely competent, a family man not a faggot, and a helluva nice guy to boot. A future Attorney-General anyone!!!
Matthew Pilott 11

9 January 2008 at 12:12 pm

“These are people who produce or create nothing, and have always lived off others, irrespective of productivity or personal ability. Teachers (including university lecturers) live off the taxpayer in comfortable sinecures from which they are not dismissed for poor performance. Union reps live off the union dues of members, and mostly appear to travel around in member-funded cars from one talk-fest and slap-up lunch to another.

For both these groups, wealth is not something to be created which is what those of us who live in the real world understand, but something to be stolen from the productive and redistributed.”

Right, let’s do away with teachers and see how well the country does. (ok I know (hope!!) that’s not what you mean, but I think your statement on teachers needs some qualification). Teaching performs best universally as a cooperative enterprise. In a competitive system, the best teachers would recieve the best pay, requiring greater fees for their services. That would prepetuate underperformance in areas where parents were unable to stump fees for the best education, leaving their children with the same limited prospects to pass onto their children.

Teachers do not create wealth as I understand you see it. They do not make goods, or provide a service to paying customers in a free market. They are, however, wealth enablers, and vital in their own right; not some form of parasitic class as you appear to describe.

I’d be interested in your ideas though, in regards to teacher performance, and why you feel theachers believe wealth is something to be stolen. My perception is that many teachers take low-paying jobs in order to help children and young adults, quite often for their appreciation of teh job and its satisfaction. This goes some way to ameliorate the limited income, but its a far cry from your perception!

If you compare the contract of a worker who is not fortunate enough to own their own business, with the legal requirements for employment, you’ll find that unions have done quite a lot for the average worker in this country. I won’t bother to contradict your stereotyping of Union activities, not worth trying to counter that perception!

Phil, I agree with that – CC was a virtual unknown competing against Mr O-B, so was unlikely to make the in roads he did purely by his own virtues. Still, to have performed as well as he did means he did a lot right in presenting a viable alternative to Dunne.

You are also right about his not being the safest seat in the country, it’s probably on a par with some of those you mentioned though.

Oh. leftard. Brill :p Equating with retard, one can only assume. Nice and, ah, impersonal?? Hello pot, hello kettle.
Matthew Pilott 12

9 January 2008 at 12:23 pm

Steve Franks is hugely competent, a family man not a faggot, and a helluva nice guy to boot.

That type of comment ain’t going to do you any favours. Funny, with your other posts you seemed too rational and intelligent to be a homophobe. What a shame.

I really hope Franks gets nominated in Central, Robertson will easily destroy him.

But while we’re at it, instead of Right ex-laywers wouldn’t we do better with people who were on the minimum wage in industries such as the service industry? These people represent more of NZ than someone on a six-figure salary, and would work to improve the lot of those in their previous position.
Matthew Pilott 13

9 January 2008 at 12:35 pm

Crap. Take two:

“Steve Franks is hugely competent, a family man not a faggot, and a helluva nice guy to boot.”

That type of comment ain’t going to do you any favours. Funny, with your other posts you seemed too rational and intelligent to be a homophobe. What a shame.

I really hope Franks gets nominated in Central, Robertson will easily destroy him.

But while we’re at it, instead of Right ex-laywers wouldn’t we do better with people who were on the minimum wage in industries such as the service industry? These people represent more of NZ than someone on a six-figure salary, and would work to improve the lot of those in their previous position.
Phil 14

9 January 2008 at 2:01 pm

The last MP to come into parliament on or near minimum wage (a benefit?) was Alamein Kopu… yeah, she did a great job, didn’t she?

That said, I agree completely that parliament should be more representative of the true ‘flavour’ of voters… the problem is that in order to get on a party list with a remote chance of getting into parliament, you need to A) have done something pretty special in your career and be willing to take a massive pay cut or B) know the right people in the right places, at the right time.

Sadly, your average secretary or plumber just isn’t going to cut the mustard most of the time.
Michele Cabiling 15

9 January 2008 at 2:12 pm

Matthew Pilott wrote:

“Teachers do not create wealth as I understand you see it. They do not make goods, or provide a service to paying customers in a free market. They are, however, wealth enablers, and vital in their own right …”

Consider today’s state school teacher. Many should never have been allowed to matriculate from high school, let alone be awarded a university degree or teaching diploma.

Gramscian Marxists colonised the academy more than 30 years ago with the deliberate intention of using our universities as factories of ideological reproduction.

Once they attained critical mass in verious departments, particularly those specialising in the study of society, their dominance on faculty hiring committees enabled them to systematically exclude those holding other views.

A cursory glance at the course outline for a teaching degree discloses little focus on pedagogy and a curriculum heavily loaded [the analogy of a full bowel springs to mind] with Marxist race/gender/class strutural analysis. Alternative world views are simply not presented and students are told by their instructors that they are clever for accepting the programming, and all too frequently leave the academy viewing themselves as academically anointed “agents of social change.”

The curriculum typically consists of one-sided politically correct class participation in conversation which can be heard at any leftard-dominated wine and cheese evening. Graduate teachers have an exaggerated self-estimation of their capacities whilst being educationally limited to functioning as angry social activists.

I, for one, would not want my children subjected to the state school indocrination process.
Michele Cabiling 16

9 January 2008 at 3:31 pm

Matthew Pilott wrote:

“[W]ith your other posts you seemed too rational and intelligent to be a homophobe.”

Interesting how a principled opposition to what is, on all the evidence (since deleted by the moderators) a dirty, dangerous pathological sexual addiction, merits a label rather than an argument.

Are you a sodomite, Matthew?
Matthew Pilott 17

9 January 2008 at 4:04 pm

Interesting how a principled opposition to what is, on all the evidence (since deleted by the moderators) a dirty, dangerous pathological sexual addiction, merits a label rather than an argument.

Are you a sodomite, Matthew?

No. Do you think it’s fair to assume as much should someone object to the term ‘faggot’? Do you consider using a juvenile term such as that a ‘principled stand’?

Are you seven years old, Michele?

P.S. i doubt the moderators deleted your comment, every time such an event has happened before (rarely, at that) there is a note to say that such an action has taken place.

That captcha – it could fool a seven year old!
Psycho Milt 18

9 January 2008 at 4:13 pm

Warning, Matthew: Michele has a serious, positively frightening obsession with sodomy. Don’t encourage him!
Michele Cabiling 19

9 January 2008 at 4:25 pm

Please note, Sucko Milt, I am female.

Sodomy is unnatural behaviour.

That which is normal is that which functions according to its design. The anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation.

As Joe Sobran puts it, “How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of inserting a life giving organ into the poop chute?”

End of story.
Kimble 20

9 January 2008 at 4:42 pm

“wouldn’t we do better with people who were on the minimum wage in industries such as the service industry? These people represent more of NZ than someone on a six-figure salary, and would work to improve the lot of those in their previous position.”

Wow, I dont think you could have said anything more retarded.

Thats who we need writing our laws! Fry cooks and toilet cleaners! I mean, they are obviously the most qualified.

Hell, more New Zealanders have an IQ around 100-105 than any other 5 point bracket. By your argument THEY should be running the country!
Kimble 21

9 January 2008 at 4:44 pm

“Sodomy is unnatural behaviour.”

How about if two guys just suck each other off? Is that unnatural too?

You know what else is unnatural? Practically everything in modern society.
Psycho Milt 22

9 January 2008 at 4:46 pm

Please note, Sucko Milt, I am female.

We all can be, on the internet. Forgive my skepticism.
Matthew Pilott 23

10 January 2008 at 9:46 am

Kimble, I was trying to make a point that it’s pretty much obscene to say we need politicians of X experience; best we judge them upon their individual merits, work experience being one of a multitude of factors. To be honest, I don’t see a lawyer as someone who would have contributed to society any more than a teacher.

However your lowly cooks and toilet cleaners might have a better idea of how a law would affect New Zealanders in general, as opposed to Michele’s 6-figure-salary lawyer!! They’d just ned more help in drafting the law 😉

Michele, back in the dark ages, a wonam who was able to count and reason was considered unnatural and a witch. Fortunately for you, that phase has passed, I guess people grew out of the idea that women should be ignorant and subservient.

Maybe you’ll grow out of your ideas too, but I shan’t hold my breath.

As for accusing me of being a sodomite, if you’d said anything equally stupid I would probably react similarly. For example if you’d said you’d support Franks because he’s white and not a nigger or chink, or that he’s normal height and not some midget to be tossed about, or because he’s a gool ol’ Hummin and not one of dem aliens I’d still suggest it’s not a good way to interact with people.

After which I can only assume you’d accuse me of being black, asian, a midget and an alien, respectively. Not what I’d call intelligent discourse.

As for homosexuality being unnatural, well if God decided 1 in 10 people were going to be gay, who am I to argue?

So how is that diet of organic fruit and veg from your own garden going? Given everything else we eat is unnatural, and, well, supermarkets don’t grow in the wild so I don’t suppose you use them.

Speaking of it, why are you using a computer? I can’t think of anything more unnatural than a powered series of components that alows you to communicate with people anywhere in the world. C’mon, keep true to your homophobic self Michele, face-to-face from now on – it’s the only natural way!
Kimble 24

10 January 2008 at 12:11 pm

“To be honest, I don’t see a lawyer as someone who would have contributed to society any more than a teacher.”

That is because you lack imagination.

“lowly cooks and toilet cleaners might have a better idea of how a law would affect New Zealanders in general, as opposed to Michele’s 6-figure-salary lawyer!!”

All you are doing is taking the experience of hundreds of thousands of people, attributing it to one mythical person, and then saying that this “person” would be best placed to know how a law would affect those other hundreds of thousands of people.

Tell me why a cook or a cleaner would have any better idea than a lawyer how a change to New Zealands monetary system would affect ‘ordinary’ New Zealanders.

“Michele, back in the dark ages, a wonam who was able to count and reason was considered unnatural and a witch.”

Bullshit. You dont even know why they are called the Dark Ages, do you?

“I guess people grew out of the idea that women should be ignorant and subservient.”

Yup. Queens = subservient and ignorant.
Matthew Pilott 25

10 January 2008 at 1:05 pm

“All you are doing is taking the experience of hundreds of thousands of people, attributing it to one mythical person, and then saying that this “person” would be best placed to know how a law would affect those other hundreds of thousands of people.”

This is basically my point Kimble – you can’t say that a lawyer on a six figure salary is better than a cleaner on minimum wage, it is a base generalisation. You must judge a candidate on their individual merits.

However, if we’re in the business of generalisations, there are a lot more cooks and cleaners than wealthy lawyers, so their life experiences would be similar to a greater number of people. I won’t get into generalising as to their abilities to make changes or comprehend the effects for obvious reasons.

I’ve used the term dark ages in the widely percieved contemporary context, not the classical academic context of the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages. That’s why I didn’t capitalise ‘Dark Ages’, to make the distinction, but I suppose I could have chosen a better term.

Yes there were Queens. The weren’t, last I checked, among a majority of females in the past. Nor was their status representative thereof…
Kimble 26

10 January 2008 at 1:42 pm

“so their life experiences would be similar to a greater number of people.”

You assume that their life experience is a positive. It could just as easily be a negative.

Would you want your reckless driving case to be decided by a jury of people who have recently lost a child to a drunk driver?

The very policies that a cook or cleaner may put in place (based upon their life experiences) could perpetuate their circumstances.
Kimble 27

10 January 2008 at 1:43 pm

The queen example proves that subservience and enforced ignorance wasnt based upon gender. Men were just as often oppressed. It wasnt gender specific.
Matthew Pilott 28

10 January 2008 at 2:49 pm

“The very policies that a cook or cleaner may put in place (based upon their life experiences) could perpetuate their circumstances.”

They’d probably have to like their ex-circumstances in order to do that intentionally, and have very poor advisors and information to do so accidentally..?

This level of conjecture actually makes for a rather pointless convesation…
Michele Cabiling 29

10 January 2008 at 3:35 pm

Matthew Pilott wrote:

“As for homosexuality being unnatural, well if God decided 1 in 10 people were going to be gay, who am I to argue?”

For starters, the “one in ten” fallacy originated with sex researcher, Alfred Kinsey, who although married, and thus technically bisexual, was actually far more enthusiastic about sodomy and masochism than about making it with his wife.

Kinsey’s stated agenda in the 1950s was to undermine the existing Judeo-Christian consensus of American society, thus normalising his own perversion.

In “Kinsey: Sex and Fraud” Dr Judith Reisman identifies a number of deliberate and egregious errors in Kinsey’s data gathering process which point up the fact that Kinsey commenced his studies of human sexual behaviour with strong priors.

Kinsey was warned by noted social researcher, Dr Abraham Maslow [Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs — for anyone who has studied Psychology or Marketing] that in conservative 1940s and 1950s America there was a self-selection bias built into the research Kinsey was conducting, and that those volunteering to reveal their sexual behaviour to the Kinsey team would therefore report a higher incidence of unconventional behaviour than a randomly chosen sample.

Kinsey’ sample was also deliberately contaminated with male prostitutes, prison habituees and mental patients, thus skewing the results in favour of the conclusion Kinsey wished to present to the public. Reisman suggests that around 33 percent of the Kinsey’s male sample fell into this category.

The “one in 10” claim is therefore politically useful to the Lavender Lobby, but factually vacuous.

More reliable estimates of the numbers of gay males range from 1 – 3 percent, despite the efforts of the New Zealand Labour Party to make it compulsory.
Michele Cabiling 30

10 January 2008 at 4:08 pm

Repeat after me: “that which is normal is that which functions according to its design!”

Jay and Young (two gay researchers) found around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in “rimming” (touching the anus of one’s partner with one’s tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus); 22% engage in “fisting” (inserting one’s fist into the rectum of the partner); 23% engage in “golden showers” (urinating on each other); 4% engage in “scats” (the oral ingestion of faeces)and in “mud rolling” (rolling on the floor where faeces have been deposited).

With the exception of oral sex, the vast majority of straights would no more consider engaging in the other behaviour reported above than flying to the moon. Yet the evidence shows that gay males routinely do these things.

Modern science unequivocally warns of the health perils of buggery as an unsanitary and pathological act, of either a hetero or homosexual kind. Under the best of clinical conditions the rectum is a hostile area subject to fissure, tearing and the transmission of highly contagious diseases.

It is not designed for the intromission of penises, fists, forearms or rimming, but the expulsion of disease-ridden excrement. On these central considerations, medical opinion is very decided! Sexual diseases arising from anal intercourse are well-documented, but now recent research from the UCLA AIDS research centre demonstrates that anal cytology predicts anal precancer In HIV-positive gay men. Their findings show that HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.

The structure and function of the male and female human reproductive systems are fully complementary. Anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis. It is lined with squamous epithelium and is surrounded by a muscular tube intended for penile intromission.

The rectum, on the other hand, is lined with a delicate mucosal surface and a single layer of columnar epithelium intenuea primarily for the reabsorption of water and electrolytes. The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects are inserted into the rectum that do not belong there.

The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function. Thus insertion of foreign objects or inadequate dilation of the anus before insertion of a large object can result in tissue laceration. The internal and external anal sphincters are elastic rings of muscle which generally remain tightly constricted except during defecation. The anal sphincters are also intended for material to pass through them in a direction that leads out of the body. When an attempt is made to insert something in the reverse direction, the muscles of the sphincter reflexively constrict.

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

In addition to infections and trauma, tumours are a definitive risk for homosexual men. Homosexual behaviour in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.

The enteric disorders referred to above are transmitted by “rimming” and by the gay male practice of engaging in oral sex with an unwashed penis that has already been in a rectum.

Gays are also extremely promiscuous in a manner that would stagger most straights. According to gay researchers Bell and Weinberg’s “Homosexualities” around 23 percent of gay white males reported having 1, 000 or more lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 10, 000. Some 53.3 percent recorded 500 or more lifetime sexual partners.

More telling, upwards of 70 percent of those partners were men who were unknown to one another, and with whom the men surveyed had sex just once. “Hook ups” in other words.

The natural and intended purpose of sex is two-fold: [1] procreation; and [2] “good relationship” ie creating the pair bond needed for couples to remain together while raising their offspring.

In “Homosexualising America,” Robert Altman gloats that gays have changed the way in which straights view sex. What he means (and the statistics above bear this out)is that gays have spearheaded a widespread attitudinal change such that sex for many people is no longer about “good relationship” but simply about “feeling good” or “if you have an itch, scratch it.”

On all the evidence, homosexuality is a dirty, dangerous, pathological sexual addiction that is an obscene parody of normal, natural sexual relations.

“It’s all about love and commitment” witters the Lavender Lobby. That’s because they know that few straights would see anything romantic in the idea of sticking their tongue into someone else’s rectum.
Matthew Pilott 31

10 January 2008 at 4:35 pm

Sweet Jesus…

Without delving so deeply into the physiology of the sexual details, as you seem to relish, you’re happy to discriminate against people based upon this? Who/how you fuck is the basis for your chosen electoral representative, regardless of ability? Does one need to be good in the sack to get your vote?

Not to imply you’re a prude, but there’s a lot of sexual behaviour out there that heterosexual couples engage in that you would clearly consider unnatural. I take it you’d vote against anyone who engaged in any form of sexual congress that wasn’t missionary with the lights out?

Finally do you consider it a sickness, something that can be cured, or something that is inherent without volition in a certain percentage of society?

I.e. are they to be condemned in your judgement?

Oh & ain’t it a laugh that females emit a pheromone that naturally repells men after sex – part of male’s natural instinct to spread his genetic material far and wide. You are aware that monogamy hasn’t been proven to be natural per se? I guess you must be a ‘swing’ voter? 😉
Michele Cabiling 32

10 January 2008 at 4:59 pm

“Not to imply you’re a prude, but there’s a lot of sexual behaviour out there that heterosexual couples engage in that you would clearly consider unnatural. I take it you’d vote against anyone who engaged in any form of sexual congress that wasn’t missionary with the lights out?”

You exhibit a willful intention to disregard what I say above:

“The natural and intended purpose of sex is two-fold: [1] procreation; and [2] “good relationship” ie creating the pair bond needed for couples to remain together while raising their offspring.”

Any sexual activity between a man and a woman uses their genitals for their natural and intended purpose. It doesn’t necessarily have to be full intercourse, let alone in one position or with the lights out. Oral sex, mutual masturbation, props, sex games and toys may well contribute to pair-bonding outcomes and indeed do on many occasions.

It is when inanimate obects or body parts become fetishised that normal sexual behaviour becomes a perversion.

As already noted above , the natural function of the anus means that using it for sexual purposes is similarly perverse, irrespective of whether those engaging in the behaviour are gay or straight.

On all the evidence, a tiny minority of straights have ever engaged in rimming, fisting and sodomy. Most people I talk to, especially other women, express considerable disgust if anal intercourse comes up as a topic (“Eeeew!” is the most common response).

That there are those who actually engage in rimming and fisting, that’s so far off the radar for most people that they are not even aware such things exist as sexual possibilities.

The handful of people I know who admit to having had anal sex admit to trying it once, usually under the influence of alcohol, and say they didn’t like it and will be sticking to conventional methods from now on.

Remember the Playboy (derived from Kinsey) Philosophy of “outlet sex” where sex is seen a a purely physical activity on a par with taking a dump to be undertaken with anyone available? Aussie comedian, Kevin “Bloody” Wilson expresses this in typical Aussie style as: “If a sheila lays down and me dick stands up, I’ll fuck anybody at all!”

No, monogamy isn’t “natural” in that we can be sexually attracted to any number of people on a physical level, but since 80 percent of sex is emotional, most of us prefer the full monty with someone we care about, not the fleeting scratching of an itch with someone of no importance.

If you struggle with monogamy don’t project that on others. As outlined above, “It’s the culture,stupid!”
Jum 33

10 January 2008 at 5:39 pm

Michele Cabiling

You really are a nasty piece of work – a sort of cross between a Judith Collins and a Muriel what was her name again. The one who said poor people should make a few holes in a rubbish sack to use as a raincoat. Oh that’s right – Newman. Are you one of them. Are you an anagram for arsehole?

You still haven’t answered my questions on Spain’s banning of hitting children.

Silly me – I thought I was having a genuine debate with people on this website – you cretins are too gross for words. Yuk. I must go and wash my hands and the keyboard in case what you and your nasties have is catching.
Michele Cabiling 34

10 January 2008 at 6:30 pm

So, Jum, we have seen that you have:

[1] Issues with males and masculinity;

[2] Sexual (and probably underlying sexuality) issues; and

[3] Issues with bodily functions.

My guess is you suffer from what we might call “princess syndrome” or “MSDS [my shit don’t stink] Syndrome,” meaning when anything associated with bodily functions comes up in conversation, it triggers an instant distancing reaction, because being reminded of these things interferes with cerebral or imaginative identities.

How you manage to change a tampon or wipe your ass whille carrying around all those hangups is beyond me. I guess you must wait outside the toilet while someone else goes in to take care of business for you, and you compelled your whipped husband change all the diapers, right?

I’m simply reporting facts, and if that hurts your virgin eyes, go dig up an old copy of Janet & John, which is guaranteed to contain nothing so disturbing.

I feel sorry for your kids given your warped attitudes to gender relations, sexuality and bodily functions. No doubt mine will have to pick up the tab should the learned social pathologies of yours come to impact the community in future years.

Your facile personal abuse of Muriel Newman cuts no ice with me or anyone but the deliberately dim. Having chaired her Whangarei electorate committee for several years I can attest that she’s 100 times the woman and the human being you are.

Before marrying her second husband, Muriel raised two children on the DPB, while concurrently achieving a black belt in Nam Wai Pai kung fu, then graduating with a PhD. in Mathematics from Rutgers University in the United States.

See, you don’t know shit!

You emetic!
Santi 35

10 January 2008 at 6:39 pm

Jum, you’ve been vanquished. Acknowledge defeat and retreat immediately.
Psycho Milt 36

10 January 2008 at 7:20 pm

I warned you guys – it’s a frighteningly intense obsession with rectums Michele has.

It brings to mind Richard Pryor’s line: “How come all you honkies are so tight-assed?” Michele must have hung around only tight-assed honkies if she’s never met anyone who’s figured out the anus is an erogenous zone. No rim jobs? Not even a finger? Er, but the mouth is OK? Is there like, a list of acceptable activities posted somewhere so we can try and figure it out?
mardypants 37

10 January 2008 at 9:20 pm

I’d honestly thought this kind of appalling bigotry had been largely expelled from our society; I’m sadden to discover there’s still people who believe it their right to pass judgment on others because of who they love.

[captcha: nounces quiche… meh]
Matthew Pilott 38

10 January 2008 at 10:13 pm

Psycho Milt, you did indeed. The wonders of the internet – you can get these types of views without actually having to meet the person. I like to hear ideas from as diverse a crowd as posible, although I suppose there’s only so much one can take (in the context of the above, perhaps that was the wrong turn of phrase!!).

I’d like to see the officially published list of Natural Acts according to Michele Cabling however, I imagine it would be, err, quite in depth.

Michele, you’re mixing business with pleasure here:

“No, monogamy isn’t “natural” in that we can be sexually attracted to any number of people on a physical level, but since 80 percent of sex is emotional, most of us prefer the full monty with someone we care about, not the fleeting scratching of an itch with someone of no importance.”

Given your propensity to brand acts unnatural, I find it surprising you’d vote for anyone who is married, for example. While 80% of the pleasure of sex may be emotional (the difference between males and females is marked here, ut that’s another kettle of fish), the point of sex is not to have pleasure. It is to reproduce. Males instinctively try to share their genetic material far & wide. That is what is natural. The Judeo-Christian idea of monogamy and mariage is, in that context, a perversity upon the natural world. You could say it’s as bad as…well I’ll leave the gory details to your imgination.

Now, I don’t actually believe in what I have said above (marriage and monogamy being a perversity), for the reason that we are a civilised society, and have evolved into a state where stability in the family is amenable to the raising of children, amongother things. Just one way in which society surplants what is “natural”.

There are numerous sociatal constructs that have normalised what is not natural on a biological, psychological and physiological level. It is an acceptance of these, I believe, that leads to the reaction Mardypants had to your views, as an example.

What you’ve done here is to bore down upon a single act you consider unnatural, and create an idea around it. The flaw is in your perception of ‘unnatural’ – as Kimble said so succinctly, “You know what else is unnatural? Practically everything in modern society.” Do you hate everything ‘unnatural’? Are you picking and choosing for political expediancy, or some personal crusade perhaps?
Michele Cabiling 39

10 January 2008 at 10:55 pm

Every act of heterosexual intercourse, whether intended for pleasure or procreation, uses our sex organs for their natural and intended purpose.

The mechanics of sodomy have been well documented by me in previous posts, so I see no need to recap for the benefit of the deliberately dim.

A simple joke will suffice.

Randy comes home from work to find Cyril pushing a turd around the bath with his hand. “What are you doing, Cyril?” askd Randy. “I’m teaching Junior how to swim,” replies Cyril.

Heterosexual intercourse creates life. Homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life. End of story boys …
Matthew Pilott 40

10 January 2008 at 11:30 pm

A simple joke won’t suffice actually; however, it’s edifying (on one level) to see you resort to jokes and toilet humour.

You consider homosexual intercourse unnatural, but can’t define what is or is not ‘natural’ outside of this dubiously limited context. There are countless other examples of unnatural acts, a few examples of which I have given.

I therefore await your crusade against marriage, consumption of MSG, and people driving vehicles at speeds faster that that which they can run for starters, as based upon your value system, people who engage in these acts are performing something for wich they were not intended, and are therefore to be denigrated, ridiculed, abused and, presumably, are unfit for public office.

I’m not being deliberately dim (might I note you have ignored the entire content of my post), I’m merely trying to demonstrate what an unfortunately narrow view of the world you have chosen to express here (forgive the understatement), and presumably hold dear.
Jum 41

11 January 2008 at 12:09 am

I’ve changed my mind. You people are actually a bit of a laugh. Haven’t changed my mind about Muriel, tho. I can understand from the description why she’s got a thing about black polythene bags. You for instance, Michele.

What!!! Muriel accept the DPB. What a hypocrite. All that bleating about people living off the smell of an oily rag and now, even worse, I have to picture you two casting electorate spells over a cup of hot chocolate urine, with turd marshmallows I guess or horned toads’ legs. Whatever.

The idea that you two jekyll and hydes are/were working in a political arena that may influence my life is way too scary.
Jum 42

11 January 2008 at 8:56 am

SANTI

‘Vanquished’? That word suggests a time of idealism and chivalry. Michele has neither.She’s vicious and vacuous and predictable when she’s losing.

MICHELE’s

pompous arse extended diatribes are boring and unnecessary. They are nothing to do with the matter in hand. Speaking of hands – she’s doing a snow job or is it a blow job in your world, with blow ins like Key.

Michele and Key can (e)vacuate together.
Jum 43

11 January 2008 at 9:52 am

Michele Cabiling

How many MOTIONS did you and Muriel pass when you were on da committay, passing rasulooshunssssssssss?

Sorry

I guess I didn’t wash my hands fast enough.
Michele Cabiling 44

11 January 2008 at 11:44 am

Jun wrote:

“Muriel accept the DPB. What a hypocrite.”

Muriel accepted the DPB as a temporary expedient because she was dumped by a deadbeat dad and left on her own with two small children. Rather than seeing the DPB as a lifestyle, she used it as a hand-up not a handout — the manner in which it was originally intended. Rather than taking it as an unconditional ENTITLEMENT, Muriel met her reciprocal RESPONSIBILITIES by raised her children to be unversity graduates, not inter-generation dole bludgers.

Over the course of her subsequent career (PhD. in Mathematics from a prestigious US university, successful business owner, President of the Northland Chamber of Commerce, Member of Parliament) I’m sure that she has paid way more in taxes than she ever received from the welfare state.

No hypocrisy there.

All in all a good investment by Nanny State, I’d have thought.

It seems like you have something against successful women, Jum. Could it have something to do with envy perhaps? Feelings of personal inadequacy and lack of fulfillment in your own life?

“I have to picture you two [Michele and Muriel] casting electorate spells over a cup of hot chocolate urine, with turd marshmallows I guess or horned toads’ legs.”

Must be some kind of Freudian slip. I have to picture you feverishly praying to the Goddess that advances in medical technology allow you to clone yourself twice, so you can dance around a cauldron.
Phil 45

11 January 2008 at 11:57 am

Jum/Michelle

Are you two parts of the same split personality disorder a-la “Criminal minds” last night?
Michele Cabiling 46

11 January 2008 at 12:08 pm

1. Jum wrote:
“MICHELE’s pompous arse extended diatribes are boring and unnecessary. They are nothing to do with the matter in hand.”

In Ancient Greece, major issues were decided by direct particpatory democracy. Accordingly, oratory ability was highly prized in terms of being able to influence the outcome of political debate.

A school of “anti-philosophy” called “Sophism” arose teaching inferior intellects how to demagogue the arguments of better-armed opponents.

As Friedrich Hayek puts it, this enables the demagogue to: “gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

To adequately address any topic requires serious engagement, something that doesn’t readily translate into a “sound bite.”

Attacking the style of my posts rather than their substance is simply sophistry.
Michele Cabiling 47

11 January 2008 at 12:10 pm

Jum wrote:

“How many MOTIONS did you and Muriel pass when you were on da committay, passing rasulooshunssssssssss?

“Sorry I guess I didn’t wash my hands fast enough.”

Obviously obsessed with maintaining what Freud describes as “the immaculate anus” and probably something to do with receiving the wrong kind of toilet training as a child.

All I can say is that you strike me as a candidate for some serious psychoanalysis.
Michele Cabiling 48

11 January 2008 at 12:15 pm

Phil wrote:

“Jum/Michelle

Are you two parts of the same split personality disorder a-la “Criminal minds” last night?”

More like polar (NOT bipolar) opposites.

1. Educated v Uneducated.

2. Married to a real man not a pussywhipped feminist lackey.

3. Libertarian, not statist.

4. Confortable with my body and sex, not someone with a diseased imagination about such matters.

5. Able to argue dispassionately for the inherent rationality of my ideas, not a quivering bundle of primitive emotions, who has internalised a particular world view, and therefore has a hysterical hissy fit when it it is questioned.
mardypants 49

11 January 2008 at 1:28 pm

Michele, I share your hope that Franks is nominated for the National Party. Although I agree with him on very few matters, he is a good candidate albiet somewhat of a chameleon. What I find excruiating is your insistence on some sort of hyper-conservative Christian filter for NZ politics. You’re entitled to your view, but please don’t insist that others agree; the world is a far more diverse place than you appear willing to accept.

I also hope you’ve got a key role in his campaign. I respect the fact that you’re very open in your beliefs, I genuinely respect this. There is a place for such beliefs in our broad democracy, however I’m not at all sure the good people of Wellington, or the Wellington National Party for that matter, would feel well represented by you or by Franks if, in fact, he shares your world view (which I doubt he’d state publicly).

Lets leave aside the issues of sexuality which, thankfully, are not qualifications for elected office and instead focus on the qualities the different candidates might being to parliament.
Jum 50

11 January 2008 at 2:16 pm

As usual, National/Act clones band together to produce the same gut spilling garbage directed at people who disagree with their, at best, bovine views.

1. Educated? All you do is quote other people and then try to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, especially when you know they have a valid point.

2. Hee Hee…. send PHIL over here and tell my husband he’s not a real man and all 6 foot and a bit of him will turn Phil into a split personality – but no, he won’t. He’s not a violent man but he would clearly display his dislike for anyone who tries to tell him he’s pussy whipped. He’s one of the few men I do have any respect for.

Notice I said send Phil. You’re obviously one of those people who pick fights and then send your ‘real’ husband to deal with it. I guess Phil is your closet ‘real’ man for posting purposes.

Add Michael Cullen to that list of men I respect. He and Helen Clark make a good team and I look forward to a long and happy working partnership between them as the government of a real man’s and real woman’s choice.

3. The only time people admit to being libertarian is when they’re not being badly affected by it.(sort of like going on the DPB but only for a little while and not that anyone else should, because only I had this really bad relationship, sob).

4. Comfortable with our bodies and sex – now there is an interesting subject Michele. My personal belief has always been ‘sex between/among consenting adults has no boundaries providing no one gets damaged by it’. I guess the difference between you and me is that I don’t need to use every sexual word in the alphabet to prove that. And thus if I consider it okay for homosexuals to have sex that actually makes me more understanding about differences in people than you Michele. Maybe you’re the one who needs Uncle Freudie, or even PsychoMilt – now that would be an interesting session.

5. Calling me an emetic is not dispassionate Michele. It’s probably quite witty but definitely not dispassionate. I’ve found, when dealing with types like you on blog sites, I have to reduce down to your style/substance in order to communicate. My apologies for that.

I should thank you also – you’ve given me some excellent insights into your political world.
Jum 51

11 January 2008 at 2:34 pm

Phil

Criminal Minds is one of the best profiling shows on television. How people tick interests me greatly and I have seen some of the most telling profiles emerge on this blog. I have also gained insight into how the political parties National/Act behave. It’s not a pretty sight and certainly Act would not be welcomed as a party of choice to lead NZ from reading those posts.

I both Jum Michele and would prefer not to be lumped together whether in split fashion or otherwise.
Jum 52

11 January 2008 at 2:43 pm

Phil

Correction

Both Jum and Michele would prefer not to be lumped together, whether in split fashion or otherwise.
Michele Cabiling 53

11 January 2008 at 3:12 pm

Mardypants wrote:

“What I find excruiating is your insistence on some sort of hyper-conservative Christian filter for NZ politics.”

Where did that come from? As already stated, principled opposition to dirty, dangerous, pathologically promiscuous sexual behaviour is not restricted to “hyper-conservative Christians.” Never at any point have I invoked Bible-based arguments in support of my position.

“Lets leave aside the issues of sexuality which, thankfully, are not qualifications for elected office and instead focus on the qualities the different candidates might being to parliament.”

The oft-heard argument from the political and lifestyle left is that a person’s sexual preference [‘sexuality’ wrongly implies a person is ‘born gay’] is of no importance when it comes to assessing their suitability for public office.

I do not accept this position. Edmund Burke stated: “”A representative owes the people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.”

That means ALL the people, not a narrow interest group he/she believes themself anointed to represent.

Friedrich Engels, in a letter to Karl Marx about a book penned by 19th Century German gay actvist Karl-Hans Ulrichs, wrote “The pederasts start counting their numbers and discover they are a powerful group in our state. The only thing missing is an organisation, but it seems to exist already, though it is hidden.”

In “The Pink Swastika,” Lively and Abrahams state: “the implicit goal of homosexual political activism is to legitimise homosexual conduct and relationships in a society. This necessarily requires a society to abandon its commitment to marriage as the exclusive domain of acceptable sexual conduct.

“The abandonment of this standard logically opens the door to every other form of sexual promiscuity. Clearly, such a transformation of
attitude is now occurring … What we will find is that this transformation is not the result of random social forces, but of deliberate and systematic political activism
by the ‘gay’ movement.”
Jum 54

11 January 2008 at 3:16 pm

If the DPB had not been available to dear Muriel and she had to stay with her husband – oh dear, could have been a whole different story.

Actually, I’ll have to think about that. If we didn’t have the DPB, we wouldn’t have had Muriel in Parliament. Hmmmm.

Nah, however much I’d like to be rid of Muriel and her coven, I would not have seriously dismantled the DPB – there are far too many more deserving women out there, and some men.
Jum 55

11 January 2008 at 3:31 pm

Mardypants

Please leave Michele alone – she’s doing a great job for Greens, Maori, United Future, New Zealand First, Progressive, Labour…, the gays, et cetera.

Mind you with all this quoting from other people, does Michele actually know who she is. Have we had an actual sentence that doesn’t involve some other alive or dead person’s viewpoint?
Matthew Pilott 56

11 January 2008 at 3:35 pm

“That means ALL the people, not a narrow interest group he/she believes themself anointed to represent.”

I would imagine that the anti-gay lobby is far fewer in number than those who are neutral (i.e. have no objection to a human being based upon their sexuality) or pro-gay. Run a rampant homophobe against a homosexual for public office and I suspect you’ll get your answer.

“This necessarily requires a society to abandon its commitment to marriage as the exclusive domain of acceptable sexual conduct.

“The abandonment of this standard logically opens the door to every other form of sexual promiscuity. Clearly, such a transformation of attitude is now occurring”

Boo-bloody-hoo, the Judeo-Christian stranglehold on sexual activites might end, along with it, one can only imagine, civilised society, the world, and potentially the universe. We’ve got some real conspiracy theorists on our hands, though, if they believe that it is only the gay lobby that has caused a transformation in restrictive traditional and conservative values.
Michele Cabiling 57

11 January 2008 at 4:13 pm

Jum wrote:

“He’s [my husband] one of the few men I do have any respect for.”

That’s telling, isn’t it. Any man who can co-exist in the same space as a sour, bitter misandrist like you may as well have handed you a razor and invited you to cut it off.

I guarantee “respect” for your husband lasts only for as long as he continues to leave the toilet seat down on command.

Oh, he’s “whipped,” all right!

“You’re obviously one of those people who pick fights and then send your ‘real’ husband to deal with it.”

Really? I don’t seem to be too much on the back foot to you in an intellectual sense, so why would I need to up the ante to physical violence?

“My personal belief has always been ‘sex between/among consenting adults has no boundaries providing no one gets damaged by it’.”

What about the fact that gays are are physically and psychologically damaged by the sexual practices they elect to engage in. These consist primarily of oral-genital or oral-anal contact and anal intercourse. Such practices are inherently dangerous because of the proclivity to produce occult and overt physical trauma, often spreading sexually transmitted disease.

The rectum is particularly vulnerable to sexual trauma, where breaks in the protective membrane barrier facilitate blood exchange and, in turn, the transfer of infectious agents. Furthermore, certain male homosexual practices, such as “fisting,” i.e. the insertion of the entire hand into the recipient’s anal canal, are likely to cause more serious injuries. Surgery has been required for some rectal injuries cause by insertion of “sex toys,” such as vibrators.

Infection rates for HIV are highest among homosexual men compared to intravenous drug users and heterosexual men and women, and may approach 50% in urban environments. HIV infection and AIDS is by far the leading cause for early mortality in this group. High-risk behaviours will continue to be associated with serious life-threatening consequences and significantly shortened life expectancies among gay and bisexual men.

Homosexual men are also at increased risk for certain malignancies, including lymphoma and anal cancer. Research has shown that human papilloma virus (HPV) infection in gay men is primarily responsible for their high rate of anal cancer. The incidence of anal cancer among homosexual men now exceeds that of cervical cancer in women. Co-existent HIV infection increases the risk even more.

As a Libertarian I believe everyone is entitled to go to hell in their own way as long as they do so in private with other consenting adults and there is no collateral damage to non-consenting third parties.

However, I still reserve the right, as a thinkng being, to pass comment as I see fit on the viability of that behaviour. Homosexuality is undoubtedly a dangerous, pathological and unsanitary lifestyle, not to mention biologically redundant behaviour. It is impossible to take seriously the suggestion there is no functional difference between sperm swimming towards eggs or sperm swimming towards faeces.

I regard myself as under no political or moral obligation to fund the medical treatment of self-inflicted ailments suffered by those electing to engage in promiscuous anal sodomy. Its consequences are documented, known in advance, and therefore shouldn’t be passed on to others in the community who don’t engage in that behaviour.

Open question: “If you needed a blood transfusion, would you prefer to have blood from a gay man who says he always uses condoms, or from married heterosexual who says he’s faithful to his wife?”
Michele Cabiling 58

11 January 2008 at 4:35 pm

Jum wrote:

“Mind you with all this quoting from other people, does Michele actually know who she is. Have we had an actual sentence that doesn’t involve some other alive or dead person’s viewpoint?”

Thats called an ad hominem attack, not a reasoned rejoinder to anything I’ve stated. Educated people often use quotes in marshalling and supporting an argument. But of course you wouldn’t know that ….

Perhaps it makes you feel insecure that others possess superior erudition?

Matthew Pilott wrote:

“Boo-bloody-hoo, the Judeo-Christian stranglehold on sexual activites might end, along with it, one can only imagine, civilised society, the world, and potentially the universe. We’ve got some real conspiracy theorists on our hands, though, if they believe that it is only the gay lobby that has caused a transformation in restrictive traditional and conservative values.”

Let’s broadden your understanding of the mechanics of political manipulation a little:

The shifting paradigm of sexual morality is a source of much controversy in Western culture, and homosexuals, though less than 3 percent of the population, are at the centre of this controversy.

The secular civil rights of consenting adults are increasingly coming into conflict with the traditional Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society. This is no accident.

The notion that particular groups of people meet together secretly or in private to plan various courses of action, and that some of these plans actually exert a significant influence on particular historical developments is typically rejected out of hand and dismissed as the figment of a paranoid imagination.

What we do know for sure is that Marxist-Leninists have for decades agitated among various minority groups in order to bring about the breakdown of our existing society and its replacement with a model of their own choosing.

The three main roadblocks to its goal of a secular and socialist world order are private property (which provides material independence from state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above that of the state).

Homosexual activism was long ago identified by Marxist-Leninists as a social force that could be harnessed and directed to undermine the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western culture.

Marx had claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. An existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until socialism is achieved.

Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.

Groups who can be helped by Communists to see that they are “marginalised” from capitalist society due to their race, gender, class and sexual preference have long proved particularly fertile ground for those looking to promote dialectical conflict. Marxist-Leninists, worldwide, have practised for decades a process of agitating amongst such groups in order to achieve social breakdown and eventual socialist control.

The notion that homosexuals are an oppressed group or class first gained broader currency through the efforts of university professors influenced by Antonio Gramsci, one of the many disreputable Communists enshrined as intellectual icons by the academic left.

As an innovative Stalinist in the 1930s, Gramsci pondered the historic inability of Communist parties to mobilise workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the capitalist ruling classes. He saw that Western society, steeped in traditions of freedom and liberty, would never succumb to a frontal assault and its workers were too busy accumulating capital to be cannon fodder for a socialist revolution.

Gramsci responded by expanding Marx’s ranks of the oppressed from the working classes alone to include other “marginalised groups” such as women, racial minorities and homosexuals. Due to the ideological supremacy of the existing powerful groups in society, said Gramsci, these groups lacked consciousness of their own oppression. By internalising the value systems and world views of the privileged groups, they had consented to their own marginalisation.

For a revolutionary social transformation to occur, the revolution must therefore first take place at the level of consciousness. Gramsci saw intellectuals as having a key role in delegitimising and unmasking the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups to empower “marginalised groups.” He urged radicals to acquire “cultural hegemony” by which he meant capturing the institutions that produce society’s governing ideas. Helping “marginalised groups” to an awareness of their own class oppression would be the key to controlling and transforming the society itself. Universities were to be first-line political weapons in this “war of position.”

Marxist intellectuals first slithered into the academy in the 1930s. They covertly increased their numbers over succeeding decades, and by the 1960s were a significant presence at universities throughout the Western world. After achieving critical mass in the liberal arts faculties, particularly those dealing with the study of society itself, they systematically excluded anyone holding viewpoints outside the leftist spectrum.

Many academics now see themselves not primarily as educators, but as agents of an “adversary culture” at war with the world outside the university. Their agenda is to produce students who will go forth from the academy as “agents of social change,” committed to achieving “social justice” for the “marginalised groups” Gramsci had identified.

For three decades students have been taught that rather than living in free societies, they are trapped in a wicked caste system of race, gender and sexuality crying out for revolutionary change. There are few, if any dissenting voices. Under the saturating drumbeat of this “cultural pessimism,” many intellectuals from “dominant groups” were induced to “switch sides” as Gramsci had envisaged.

After their consciousness-raising by Marxist academics, intellectuals from “subordinate groups” and those from “dominant groups” induced to throw in their lot with the “oppressed” moved from the academy directly into government, the media, entertainment, the trade unions, the churches, the education system and other opinion-shaping activities or careers. Once there, they worked tirelessly to promote the Marxist-Leninist agenda. As a result, the values of a free society have been subjected to three decades of unrelenting attack from within.

Two kinds of intellectuals are pushing the notion of homosexuals as a “marginalised” or “oppressed” group. The first is a numerically small hard-core left wing activist class that derives a sense of intellectual superiority from knowing it is manipulating the situation. The second consists of large numbers of passive enablers who have unwittingly embraced socialist doctrines, largely because their leftist professors ensured that they were never exposed to intellectual alternatives.

The person most responsible for bringing “gay rights” to the forefront of Western social discourse is an obscure American “civil rights” campaigner named Harry Hay. In the 1930s, Hay renounced his family’s privileged social status to become a Marxist-Leninist agitator. He married a political colleague; the couple adopted two children and for years worked together to advance the Communist cause in various parts of America. Throughout his youth and marriage, Harry Hay fought off homosexual inclinations. By 1950, he had abandoned his wife and children to fully embrace a homosexual lifestyle.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Communist Party of the U.S.A. (of which Hay and several gay friends were members) frowned on homosexuality in Marxist-Leninist ranks. But Hay and his friends remained unconvinced that their sexual preference necessarily represented a liability to the advancement of socialism.

Hay had read Gramsci. He’d also read Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948) and been struck by Kinsey’s finding that around 10% of men Kinsey surveyed had been “exclusively homosexual” for at least some significant part of their lives. If Kinsey’s 10% figure was even close to accurate, Hay reasoned, homosexuals must represent a large and significant group that could be mobilised to advance the socialist cause. Hay soon concluded that the general public’s sympathy could be aroused for gay people if homosexuals were painted as yet another “oppressed minority” in need of liberation and government advocacy.

In 1950, Hay and a number of fellow Marxist-Leninist intellectuals founded the Mattachine Society, America’s first “homosexual activist” organization. Its ostensible goals were to educate the public about homosexuality and work for the repeal of the (at that time) 48 States’ so-called “sodomy laws” (which viewed homosexual behaviour as a criminal offence).

Capitalising on still-unsevered social connections, Hay and his fellow Mattachines traversed America addressing various audiences and spread their views still further through an ever-widening circle of influential publications. Inspired by the Mattachines, several lesbian intellectuals founded a “sister” organization, the Daughters of Bilitis, in 1955.

In line with Marxist-Leninist “Popular Front” doctrine, Harry Hay’s claim that homosexuals were both a sexual and a political “minority” welded together sexuality and politics. With constant repetition, Hay’s propaganda claim — “homosexuals are an oppressed minority” — has come to resonate strongly with many “useful idiots” looking to engage in moral preening for their commitment minority “civil rights.”

But “civil rights” was just a fish hook to attract the support of respectable people, who are then persuaded that the social suffering of homosexuals can be alleviated only by the radical social change gay activists are demanding.

Gay activists regard legal recognition of same-sex partners as the first step in securing gay marriage and adoption rights, thus relegating heterosexual marriage to just another lifestyle option among many. Publications meant for a homosexual readership today openly state that the gay activist agenda is to subvert and destroy heterosexual marriage.

Behind this push is the Marxist-Leninist propaganda claim that the formative family normalises heterosexual relations, thus marginalising alternative sexualities. Gay activists (whether they know it or not) are being used as a cat’s-paw to advance the Marxist-Leninist agenda of eradicating the formative family as the basic building block of a capitalist civil society.

Gay activism is therefore highly dangerous to the established social order. If gay activist demands are met, the Marxist anti-family agenda moves a step closer to completion.
Jum 59

11 January 2008 at 5:31 pm

Michele

Your statement about choosing between a gay and a straight is nowhere near as good as the line in the film Carrington where the lawyer asks gay pacifist Lytton Strachey, ‘if a German was raping your sister what would you do then and Lytton replies “I would attempt to come between them”. Now that is what I call an immortal and funny line. Way better than your earlier joke. At least mine is refined.

Personally if I had to choose between you, who is supposedly straight, and a gay, I’d go for the gay. After the nasty unfounded comments you continue to make about my husband and me, and since I believe that the holistic attitude of the person is in part responsible for the overall health of their body, you would poison me far more than any gay.

Since they test blood, there should not be a problem.

I would also defend your right Michele to speak your piece but don’t tell me I’m a lesser person than you just because we disagree.

Sour and bitter – oh plusseeese, Michele. You really are a nasty person. I suggest you start a daily regime of watching Spongebob Squarepants 4pm on 2 and get a better take on life.

Toilet seats look better down. It’s a fact. My husband was putting the toilet seat down long before I met him. In fact he’s reminded me to do the same a couple of times. You really are scraping the bottom now.

You are scaremongering with fisting this and cancerous that. Shouldn’t you also be discussing gonorrhoea and syphilis and all those other exciting words that YOU can give and get Michele?

I don’t remember suggesting that semen swimming towards eggs is the same as swimming towards faeces.

Next I suppose you’ll be telling me that rape of a woman is more acceptable than anal sex between two men. Then you’ll be telling me that female genital mutilation is more acceptable than anal sex between two men.

Surgery has also been necessary after giving birth. Next you’ll be telling me that’s unnatural.

When we talk of damage to gays, again the attitude towards them is just as damaging. Being gay comes back to the nature, nurture argument. Whichever you believe does not interest me and we probably agree (ohh did I say that!) on the whole process of gay sex being rather uncomfortable to say the least.

Read carefully what I said “providing no one gets damaged by it”. What do you think that means Michele? Damage is when one person gets hurt physically or mentally. That does not necessarily happen during a homosexual act. But, you were so busy spouting your mindless rubbish – no you definitely weren’t ‘thinking’ then – that you did not read my words.
Jum 60

11 January 2008 at 8:10 pm

Michele

Educated people like you use other people’e thoughts, ideas and opinions to speak for you.

Educated people like me look at the same information let it sift through my life experiences and then formulate my own opinion.

No, Michele, sigh, I am not in the least bit jealous of the educational route you took. Your opinions will be the same as all the other people in your educational sphere.

You have no original single thought, just a hodgepodge of other people’s that you all learned by rote. That’s why your party’s foreign based ideology is so dangerous for New Zealand. You’re not a thinker, you’re a user of other people’s intellect, and also in a practical way , eg in the use of cheap Labour for bigger profit, eg which is why you’ll scrap the ECA improvements IF you get into power.

Your arrogance is overwhelming and to think you people have the nerve to accuse our Prime Minister Helen Clark of arrogance. I just shake my head at the wonder of you and your types’ hypocrisy and moral corruption.

What does worry me is that your narrow sphere of mental education may be in a position to influence my life and that of my family.
Michele Cabiling 61

11 January 2008 at 9:07 pm

Ju, wrote: “No, Michele, sigh, I am not in the least bit jealous of the educational route you took. Your opinions will be the same as all the other people in your educational sphere.”

My opinions are despite, rather than due to, my education.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the academy is full of Gramscian Marxist who began colonising western universities decades ago. Upon attaining critical mass in many departments, especially those specialising in the study of society, they were able to use their dominance on faculty hiring committees to systematically exclude others who didn’t share their political opinions.

Universities are now factories for the reproduction and dissemination of radical leftist ideology. Outside of the hard sciences and practical professions, there is no penalty for being wrong, and Marxism and the ideologies it spawned continue to flourish in the academy, despite the lessons of history in the wider world. As Erich Hoffer famously stated: “Intellectuals don’t function at room temperature.”

It’s now possible to go all the way to PhD. level in the Humanities and never be taught by a single conservative professor. Whole schools of thought that completely debunk leftist ideology may as well not exist. How many ACT or National voters would you expect to find in a NZ sociology department, and if one did apply, to you think he’d be offered a job?

The leftists wank on about “diversity,” yet practice intellectual apartheid. Students are brainwashed into accepting radical leftist ideology, yet would laugh at you if called “Marxists.” They are told by their professors they are clever and virtuous for accepting the programming, and happily move into the wider world in self-congratulation mode, though only equipped to be clerks or angry social activists.

Students graduate largely ignorant of the ideas and perspectives that would equip them intellectually question the radical leftist agenda. The works of von Mises, Hayek, Aron, Oakeshott, Sowell, Popper, Strauss, Bloom, Bastiat, and other anti-socialist thinkers are virtually unknown on the left — excluded from the canons of the Marxist-dominated universities.

Despite the collapse of the socialist empire following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the marginalisation of conservative ideas in the academic culture has proved so pervasive that they may as well not exist.

As far back as 1922, Ludwig von Mises wrote a 500 page treatise proving that socialism would not work. As close as any analysis could, von Mises anticipated the social, political and economic debacle that would characterise the next seventy years of socialist history.

History has confirmed the correctness of von Mises’s insights, and just as dramatically refuted his left wing opponents, yet his intellectual contributions remain as unrecognised today as they were before Communism fell.

While the intellectual tradition that gave rise to von Mises’s insights is marginalised at every Western university, Marxism and its variants flourish, and provide the principal texts for the next generations of intellectuals.

Von Mises’s writings are invisible, yet the works of Stalinists, ignorant of even the most basic economic realities of how societies function, are familiar to most undergraduates.

In the humanities and social sciences, the discredited traditions of Marxism have become the intellectual wellspring of the main schools of current academic theory — critical studies, cultural studies, historicism, structuralism, post modernism, queer theory, and radical feminism. The comparable schools of conservative and libertarian thought barely exist within university walls.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of having been captured and brainwashed by my professors!

Perhaps you are looking in the mirror.

“Uneducated you are!” as Yoda would say.
Jum 62

11 January 2008 at 10:24 pm

Michele Cabiling

Life’s a bitch and then ya die – I’d hate to think we hadn’t finished this ‘conversation’ by then. I must admit, the visual feast you portrayed in paragraph one had me laughing in my chair. It reminded me of Harry Potter and his school chums racing in to ‘vanquish’ (this was a good novel for that word)the nasty Voldemort and the dementors.

I am slightly suspicious Michele in that you have made it plainly obvious that you think I am a stupid ‘sour bitter…’ and yet you are devising these poetic feasts for me to read. WHY? Wouldn’t anyone pay you enough attention when you were young – boarding school perhaps?

Let me come back to you tomorrow on your post. I’m watching The Worst Christmas of my Life and I won’t be sour and bitter enough if I post tonight.
Jum 63

12 January 2008 at 4:25 pm

Michele

Luckily I saved this particular blog because it seems to have disappeared off the radar and I would hate you to think I had abandoned you in your hour of need.

I’ve just delivered my poor deranged (as per your last insult about my mothering abilities)capitalist son to his part time job. Terrible isn’t it that he’s forced out to work because his mother and father refuse to supply all his wants, only his needs. Shame on us. And my daughter next. Is there no end to my despotism? And no driving until after 18. I have to drive them everywhere. Is there no end to my sadism. Shoot me now.

No Spongebob Squarepants to lift my spirits until Monday avo’. Only the news about some male despot keen to rid his country of his own people by killing, maiming, torturing and raping them – Pakistan, America (although they do it in someone else’s country), Africa, and all of them with a good religious upbringing, all ‘dementors’ in their funny little ways, sucking the spirit out of people – which brings me back to you Michele.

Hence my sour ugly bitter self is back. I’m back here communicating with you because I always keep my word.

Probably the worst thing I can insult anyone with is that they are boring and I observed the symptoms of being bored in connection with you last night in that I did not blog into the middle of the night with you. Still, a good night’s rest does wonders.

I’ve also thought further about boarding school and wonder ‘was there fagging? Is your bottom obsession something to do with having your head dunked down the toilet too many times?

And speaking of dementors in describing the first part of your usual ‘somebody said this and somebody studied that’ diarrhoea diatribe –

PARAGRAPH ONE. Harry Potter and his enlightened fellow students entering Hogwarts to free it from the creationist Voldemort (Yesteryear’s Brian Tamaki) and his demented dementors (today’s Gordon Copeland, Larry Baldock, Bob McCoskrie, the convicted paedophile Graham Capill), all of who(m) certainly wouldn’t have let you in Michele except to make the tea. We could have gone back still further, Michele, to the 1890s, the original nanny state, ruled by men, where railways and everything else was owned by t’gummint, and Premier/Prime Minister/King Dick Seddon, the man who gave women the vote through a giant ‘boob’ he made, and thanks to a couple of men who could see a rosier future with equality for women.

PARAGRAPH TWO. Not quite right about the intellectuals don’t function at room temperature. Genius doesn’t function at room temperature. Intellectuals are people who either think and make decisons to make improvements – ‘the greatest good for the greatest number'(that is Helen Clark) or quote studies to denigrate. (starts with M, ends with a very small e.)

PARAGRAPH THREE.
sentence one – should I assume from your comment that conservatives aren’t humane?
sentence two – you talk about ‘schools of thought that debunk leftist ideology’. Thought is not proof and a good analyst creates a level playing field to find the truth. You use ‘thought’ on both sides or ‘ideology’ on both sides. I know you didn’t because you see ‘thought’ as being morally loftier and ‘ideology’ as being swampmuck. I also use the word ‘ideology’ on National’s damaging and disastrous experiments because I want people to feel my anger at their historical stupidity and inability to learn from their mistakes.
sentence three – I can’t answer that unless I know those people. Most people keep their political beliefs to themselves. I would have thought that if you feel these places are overrun with lefties then as a good act supporter you would seek a job there to change it from the inside. What worries me once again about National/Act is that it would never be for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’.

Part 2 after I have done my mothering duties.

Do your children keep you as busy as mine do me, Michele?
Jum 64

12 January 2008 at 4:33 pm

Michele

Before I go, I suggest a DNA marriage between you and D4J. Hopefully the baby would have your obvious ability with words but they’d be shorter in shape and post size.
Michele Cabiling 65

12 January 2008 at 6:37 pm

Amy worthwhile explanation can be condensed (after its been made in long-hand.

Quite simply, most people are approval seekers. If they are repeatedly told that their badge of membership of “club virtue” is the adoption of certain views and values, they will adopt them virtually (or even entirely) unquestioned

I refer you to this link and suggest you check it out in order to broading your understanding of deliberate academic brainwashing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a33b0424856.htm

Now for another one of those illustrative academic quotes that educated people use, this one from Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” [you HAVE read this book, right?}.

Hayek refers to: “[T]he docile and the gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept any ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

If you have been through the modern academy, especially if you have studied in the liberal arts field, chances are you are not educated at all, but simply a bundle of conditioned reflexes.

Since your knee jerk reaction is that all the evils of the world are down to males, capitalism and business owners, you’re a classic case in point, Jum, which is why I regard you as uneducated.

You have internalised a particular world view and therefore have an emotional resistance to having it questioned. Because you are unable to argue dispassionately for the inherent rationality of your idead, you will always be a third rate intellect.

Because you have created a self-referencing system of values in order to synthesise a personality for yourself, anything that disturbs your small, complacent world is waved away with labels.

As Oscar Wilde reminds us: “If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic. You can always call him names.”
Jum 66

12 January 2008 at 8:38 pm

Michele

You are quoting Oscar Wilde at me which I find very strange considering his personal sexual tastes, to take umbrage about me calling you names. That was my introduction to your character in the first place a) about buggery and b) when you started by vilifying me and then moved on to my husband and children.

You make some strange allusion to me being an approval seeker in that I follow certain societal regimes which seem to benefit my family. The only approval I seek is my own. The only reason I am on this blog is to look at other people’s opinions and beliefs and how I might adopt them, if they are worthwhile. Any chance of considering any of yours disappeared by the end of the first blog of yours that I read.

You are a piece of work, Michele and I am having to finally admit that you are not sufficiently at peace with yourself to discuss anything dispassionately with people who disagree with you.

Look back over your posts – not one of them has been dispassionate. They have all been about one study or another. None of them convinced me that you know anything about real life. You’re a charlatan, Michele.

I’ll tell you about a study I read of in the papers – men conducted a study about dust, yes, money spent on a dust study – no, not to find out how to get rid of it, or how to stop it causing Asthma, not to prevent it collecting in corners but WHO notices it.

The answer they wanted from their study is that women notice dust more so they are better suited to housework. In NZ more women do housework. It was a predictable result.

Their purpose was to retain the internalised world view that women are more suited to housework. I thought it was quite clever of them, albeit a money waster.

You seem to think I blame men and capitalism and business owners for all the problems in the world. I always put blame where blame is due, but just as in the case of the dust study – more men have held more positions of power in our history and therefore have been to blame for more bad policy than women.

Business owners
are responsible for my children’s part time jobs. As long as both sides treat each other fairly and the business pays a decent wage for a fair day’s work, I have no problem with that.

But if a government of National/Act pulled the same stunt it did with the Employment Contracts Act, it gives business an unfair advantage to treat workers like serfs. And they did. That’s why people like you give rise to bile within my ‘internalised self’.

Capitalism implodes if it isn’t continually creating more product and forcing people to buy it. I remember seeing a television play years ago where these robotic men in lookalike grey uniforms were delivering a lounge suite and taking the other perfectly okay one away, while the householders were crying out, we can’t afford it. We don’t want it. That to me is the plague of productivity that you and John Key want to unleash upon the world. Useless stuff for people who don’t want it and can’t afford it and brainwashing marketing tactics to ‘persuade’ them that they do. Ohh, that’s now isn’t it, thanks to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

People like you have no idea of fairness or the greatest good for the greatest number, when you gain power. You want cheap labour for your businesses. I have no intention of allowing you to use my children as cheap labour. I know they work hard for their money. They are learning how to survive the world that National/Act set up which puts greed at the heart of all thinking.

You are like a petrified forest in your thinking Michele. You insult my comfortable world and political and lifestyle beliefs and yet you have nothing to persuade me otherwise.

I can see that going through your posts in a detailed, thoughtful and hopefully humorous way sometimes was a waste of time, so I’ll just swap insults with you which is something you are quite gifted at.

What a waste of my time. Since you seem to get more satisfaction from insulting people, I guess it won’t be a waste of yours.

Oh by the way, there is an interesting documentary on prime Friday 18 January – the write up was hilarious.

I quote ‘ True stories un cut: The Perfect Penis, a documentary about men who will go to desperate lengths for unregulated surgery to give them what nature hasn’t’.

Weellll, Michele, it seems that women aren’t the penis envy group at all. Because of the ridiculous macho posturing about men’s grapple, grapes, I could go on, there are men who envy other men; there are some men who will never be at peace with their bodies. I blame women like you who keep talking about women having penis envy and now you’ve hurt the very people you seem to think are perfect.
Psycho Milt 67

13 January 2008 at 9:30 am

Now for another one of those illustrative academic quotes that educated people use, this one from Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” [you HAVE read this book, right?}.

The true mark of educated gentlefolk everywhere is of course their ability to brag about the books they’ve read…
Kimble 68

13 January 2008 at 3:07 pm

“They’d probably have to like their ex-circumstances in order to do that intentionally,”

Yup, just like the perpetuation of domestic violence, people have to LIKE their previous circumstances to recreate them.

” and have very poor advisors and information to do so accidentally..?”

Ban the import of semi-high emission cars leads to older, higher emission cars being used for longer. Examples of unintended consequences abound in every government.

And if the advisers are the ones pointing them in the right direction, why not simply elect the advisers?
Michele Cabiling 69

13 January 2008 at 4:09 pm

Jum wrote:

“Their purpose was to retain the internalised world view that women are more suited to housework.”

Well if the cap fits, wear it …

“I always put blame where blame is due, but just as in the case of the dust study – more men have held more positions of power in our history and therefore have been to blame for more bad policy than women.”

That’s funny, I thought the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world …

Maybe all those poor benighted “sisters” who collude in their own class oppressions by internalising the world view of their oppressors still stubbornly resist a feminist consciousness raising.

I guess if they can whip their husbands and male offspring into not leaving the toilet seat up on pain of castration that’s “progress,” right? Not much to show for four decades of feminism …

“Useless stuff for people who don’t want it and can’t afford it and brainwashing marketing tactics to ‘persuade’ them that they do.”

In a free society people are at liberty to do things you or I might consider stupid with their own money. My mom always said: “a fool and his money are soon parted.” In a free society, people are free to succeed and free to fail. The consequences of being a dumbass rightly fall where they lie, and it’s “liberals” like you who think it’s “compassionate” to insulate people from corrective reality by allowing them to socialise the consequences of their bad decision-making.

“People like you have no idea of fairness or the greatest good for the greatest number, when you gain power.”

The wealth of ignorant leftard knee-jerking in that statement will take several paragraphs to deconstruct.

“The greatest good for the greatest number”? Whose good, and who decides? The world is full of leftards who think they know what’s best for everyone, and therefore have a right to impose it on others by force.

Leftards claim people are poor because they are “exploited” by “greedy capitalists.” Not only is this bollocks, but for the most part, people are poor not because of what others have done “to” them, but because of what they haven’t done for themselves.

“Poverty” in terms of a lack of material wealth is the natural state of social existence simply because it requires no effort to achieve it. Poverty is not caused by those who choose to elevate themselves above it, but becomes visible when there is wealth created with which to compare it.

This leads perception-bound and economicallay ignorant leftards to view the creation of wealth by some as the cause of poverty in others. Contrary to leftard redistributive dogma, the elimination of poverty can only come about through the creation of wealth. This requires intelligence, initiative, risk, effort, hard work — and a response to public need that no government could ever dare to match.

As Adam Smith famously noted, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

In a free society, irrespective of how selfish people might be on a personal level, they must be “other-centred” and provide goods and services that people want to buy. Otherwise, they don’t eat (unless of course they can compel others to feed them by electing a government to plunder the productive on their behalf).

To illustrate the leftard mentality towards poverty, consider two castaways on a deserted island, Peter and Paul. While Paul chooses to wait to be “saved”, Peter plants a garden, builds a hut, and saves his produce for harder times. Begrudgingly, Peter shares some small percentage of his produce to keep Paul from starving, but gives Paul no more than is necessary to save him from starvation. Paul has no hut, no stored food, and no means of production (i.e., a garden) to produce more food.

A leftard would view this situation and the first thing he would see would be an economic disparity. Peter is “wealthy while Paul exists in poverty! And poor Paul must rely on charity for his subsistence! A social injustice!”

Instead of rightly condemning Paul for failing to take responsibility for his own survival, a leftard would morally condemn Peter for being productive, and for not being concerned enough with the plight of Paul. It is understandable that leftards must do this.

In order to justify robbing Peter to pay Paul, it is important that Peter be morally denigrated. After all, robbing Peter for his virtue might even offend a leftard. Thus, it is a pre-requisite of being a leftard that productivity and wealth creation be viewed in a negative moral light.

“You want cheap labour for your businesses.”

The wages in any particular labour market are set by the interaction of supply and demand in that labour market. This is a function of the number of qualified people who want to work at the wages on offer. The market is neither “fair” nor “unfair” but a fact of life.

In a free society, people are not obliged to take any particular job. They are not obliged to stay in a job if they dislike the terms or conditions of employment.

To illustrate, if your kids think they aren’t paid enough at Burger King or the boss is a slave driver, they are at liberty to move to McDonalds, try the checkout at Foodtown, or borrow their parents’ lawnmower and start their own business mowing the lawns of neighbours.

Minimum wage laws inpose an abovemarket wage rate on employers, substituting the visible hand of government for the “invisible hand” of the free market. Like all statist meddling with free markets, this has unintended and deleterious consequences.

The beneficiaries of such short-sighted government actions are those fortunate enough to find work at the artificially inflated minimum wage rate. Employers will work around it either by putting in more hours themselves, making existing staff work harder, substituting a cheaper input (eg a machine) for overprices labour, or simply by going out of business.

Those who suffer are the unskilled who would have been employed at the market wage rate but can’t find a job at the minimum wage rate. Perception-bound leftards are unable to see that the vast majority of those who start in unskilled entry-level jobs are students supporting their studies, or people who once they acquire works skills (punctuality, intiative, obedience to authority)move onwards and upwards into better-remunerated, higher-skilled employment.

Leftards are never concerned with the actual OUTCOME of the policies they advocate, but with GOOD INTENTIONS, i.e. the opportunities for moral preening that flow from taking a particular world view.

Harking back to the example above, if 100 people would have been taken on at the market wage rate, and only 60 at the leftard-imposed minimum wage, are we better off in terms of your “greatest good of the greatest number” criterion?

What has in fact occurred is that 40 people have just lost the opportunity to get their feet on the first rung of the job ladder — so that do-gooders who pay no personal price for being wrong (because they can socialise the consequences via the welfare system) can give themselves a big pat on the back for belonging to “club virtue.”

Come back and talk to me when you are economically literate and not before.
Robinsod 70

13 January 2008 at 4:52 pm

You are a parody Michele, aren’t you? I mean nobody in their right mind would come out with the rubbish you do and put their real name to it? Right?

But.

Just in case you’re not (lord help us!) the idea of you claiming economic literacy is astounding. If this is your idea of intelligent debate then you better hope we don’t get the meritocracy you seem to yearn for ‘cos baby, you’ll get eaten (and not in the good way).
Psycho Milt 71

13 January 2008 at 5:49 pm

I particularly like the way Michele’s obsession with the anus and rectum segues into the toilet seat serving as a metaphor for male/female relationships. If it is a parody, it’s very well thought out.

Links to post

Chauvel does a Captain Oates « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 12 November 2007 at 12:09 am
Kiwiblog » Blog Archive » Robertson wins Wellington Central nomination: posted on 12 November 2007 at 7:38 am
KHIMICH: posted on 12 November 2007 at 8:01 am

Comments are now closed

Articles RSS

Comments
Opinions

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-07-26T23:53:26+00:00