The violent right

Written By: - Date published: 8:26 pm, July 25th, 2011 - 316 comments
Categories: im/migration - Tags:

One of the things that has shocked a lot of people about Anders Behring Breivik is the fact he appeared so normal and how he wasn’t on the authorities radar because he wasn’t part of some neo-nazi or skinhead organisation.

Of course in retrospect they’ve found a lot of stuff on the web pointing to the kind of extreme right-wing politics he had but for some reason that never triggered any warning bells.

What hasn’t been covered is just how widespread Breivik’s brand of extremism is. As Danyl has touched on over at the dim post, there are a large number of people out there on the net who believe, as Brevik does, that there is a huge Marxist/Islamist conspiracy to destroy the white Christian race. In New Zealand they often have ties to the more mainstream political right, a notable example of this is the ex vice-president of the ACT party, Trevor Louden.

Many of these people think nothing of calling for their opponents to be eliminated (as some authors here have discovered) and talk frequently of preparing themselves for race war and of how they hanker after a new crusade. However they also talk disparagingly of the skinheads they share so much of their ideals with – preferring instead to think of themselves as enlightened intellectuals, often with a classical bent (using half-baked classicism and templar myths as justification for their views). I imagine they pass for normal everyday men – for some reason they’re always men – who are probably slightly shy and social inept in person.

Blogs such as Crusader Rabbit or Oswald Bastable show how close to the surface of New Zealand’s discourse this vile philosophy is:

For some years I have been predicting a violent backlash to the cancer of socialist governments throughout Europe. In particular, to the colonization of their countries by Muslims.

This has come to pass and I’m betting there will be more of this. As any attempts to oppose this colonization are shouted down, ignored by the PC media and attacked by ‘hate speech’ laws- it is to be expected that there will be those frustrated by having no voice and that they will take violent action.

As has happened.

In a country very like New Zealand…

However even more mainstream blogs such as nominister engage in these dangerous conspiracy theories and it’s rife in the comments section of national party blogger David Farrar’s blog (commenters who are now claiming it’s the left’s fault for banning guns).

The usual right-wing suspects will claim that I am being blind to left violence, they will claim that the left use equally violent hate-speech in New Zealand’s blogosphere. Frankly I doubt it, however righties who want to make this claim should feel free to paste a link in the comments. But I doubt that anyone will be able to match the chilling vitriol of this rightwinger’s description of Breivik’s victims:

Taxpaying socialist families and socialist youth training camps are not innocent.

Update (IrishBill): “rife in the comments of national party blogger David Farrar” changed to “rife in the comments section of national party blogger David Farrar’s blog”

I certainly didn’t intend to give the impression that DPF is one of these extremists, but to convey the fact that they regularly comment on his blog.

316 comments on “The violent right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Policy Parrot 1
    25 July 2011 at 8:41 pm

    While unfortunate, it is best to leave these bloggers/people to their own devices – the ones who are not afraid to create some perverse statement from what obviously is the act of a madman. They either fall into one of three categories:

    1. They are just twisted-minded fucks, who are so deeply in denial about how the modern world functions that they are way beyond rational discussion. (The Ansells)

    2. They are just attention seeking hate-baiters, who don’t really buy in what they are saying, but do it purely for reaction/attention. (The Boscawens)

    3. A combination of both. (The Brashes)

    • IrishBill 1.1
      25 July 2011 at 8:43 pm

      I’d argue that leaving Breivik to his own devices was exactly the wrong thing to do.

    • Nick K 1.2
      25 July 2011 at 9:05 pm

      And Policy Parrot wins the prize for the first example on left wing hate speech that the author of this post said didn’t exist on the Left.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.1
        25 July 2011 at 9:09 pm

        We’re not going to pretend that what happened in Norway didn’t actually happen: a targeted political assassination of young Labour Party members.

        And perhaps you should get a clue. This isn’t about hate speech. Because things would have been quite OK if Breivik had decided to use harsh language on the teenagers, instead of automatic weapons.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2
        25 July 2011 at 9:13 pm

        Where’s the hate?

      • The Voice of Reason 1.2.3
        25 July 2011 at 9:25 pm

        Not even close to being ‘equally violent left wing hate speech”, Nick. By the way, that’s actually the phrase IB used, not your imaginary shortened version. Wanna try again? This time with a bit more thought, please.

      • Morgan 1.2.4
        25 July 2011 at 9:25 pm

        I saw him talking about the people who write this sort of thing:

        “Taxpaying socialist families and socialist youth training camps are not innocent.”

        And not so much talking about the right wing per se. I do not understand your complaint.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    25 July 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Everyone should read the The Authoritarians

    1.35MB .pdf download

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    Hat tip to DTB

    My takeaway: Right Wing extremism attracts a specific fearful/aggressive personality type, not a politics type.

    If it was an age to hate jews, they would do that, to hate gays they would do that, to hate Australians they would do that, to hate coloureds they would do that, to hate technology they would do that, etc.

    They need much more money/more power/more influence than those around them because they need to feel secure and independent of others (whom they cannot trust).

  3. joe90 3
    25 July 2011 at 8:47 pm

    A wee search of the sewer with multiculturalism, cultural marxist, Islamofacism and feminism turns up more fantasy and filth.

  4. toad 4
    25 July 2011 at 8:47 pm

    IB, I am normally all for free speech.  But taking a glimpse today, for the first time ever, at Crusader Rabbit, I realise there are some really sick puppies operating there.

    Ban them?  Or expose them, knowing they are a tiny minority who will never gain any public support. My first instincts are to the latter. 

    But then I realise how closely their ideology equates with that of Don Brash, who is also pushing white supremecist race war ideology. 

    Brash will never personally take up arms and shoot 90-odd socialist political opponents. But the race hatred he foments means some RWNJ supporter of his white supremecist “cause” may do exactly that.
     

    • IrishBill 4.1
      25 July 2011 at 8:54 pm

      In my opinion the SIS and the police would be better off keeping an eye on these rightwing nutters than spending all of their time chasing animal rights activists and other assorted harmless lefties.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 8:58 pm

        The Pork Board must know what those sneaky animal rights activists are doing!

        http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/78812/gps-tracking-device-found-afa-members-ca

      • Pete George 4.1.2
        25 July 2011 at 9:07 pm

        I think it’s up to all of us to stand up to them when they spout their violent spiels. I think most of them are just gung ho attention seekers, some don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. I remember this post where a regular (who incidentally was taken to task again today) said “I’m off to polish up the old pumpy side by side.” It was pointed out that you don’t get shotguns like that.

        But you don’t know how much encouragement the potentially dangerous ones might get, especially if their violent and hate speech is unchallenged.

        I don’t care about trying to guess political polarity, they should get called out regardless.

      • John D 4.1.3
        25 July 2011 at 9:36 pm

        “Harmless Lefties”

        I assume that someone who calls himself “Irish Bill” is the kind of [snip]
        Yes or no?

        • The Voice of Reason 4.1.3.1
          25 July 2011 at 9:42 pm

          Is John D a fuckwit? Yes or no? Keep those votes rolling in, guys, we’ve almost got a winner!

          • joe90 4.1.3.1.1
            25 July 2011 at 9:45 pm

            A fuckwit but slightly less so for deleting his kneecapping fantasy

            • The Voice of Reason 4.1.3.1.1.1
              25 July 2011 at 9:50 pm

              What a numpty! If he can’t even stand by his own demented comments, what’s the point if him posting at all?

              • John D …
                25 July 2011 at 10:05 pm

                Ok, I’ll post again, for your reading pleasure.

                I wrote :

                I presume that someone who calls himself “Irish Bill” is the kind of turd-eater who supports kneecapping, car bombs and other such niceties carried out by the IRA in the name of freedom.
                \

                Answer: Yes or No

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 July 2011 at 10:27 pm

                  John D = proving the point of this post with every comment 🙂

                • McFlock …
                  25 July 2011 at 10:32 pm

                  Um – why would you assume violent sympathies as opposed to someone who clais Irish ancestry and is called William? Or even if it was likely a reference to the English occupation of Ireland, why would you assume violent sympathies?
                   
                   

                • joe90 …
                  25 July 2011 at 10:40 pm

                  Like someone who calls himself Peter King?.

                • ianupnorth …
                  25 July 2011 at 11:27 pm

                  Well there is a bit of a quandry there – Irish (as opposed to Ulsterman) would make you assume he is from the South, but being a Bill (or Billy) would make you think he was from the north – therefore you point is what?
                   
                  Pay attention to the debate at hand or piss off. Your name calling bellittles you, not Bill

                • mik e …
                  26 July 2011 at 9:58 am

                  John doe no the IRA has morphed into a gang just like any other drugs arms money are their motivators now a little bit of terrorism on the side just to keep opposing gangs on their toes

        • Drakula 4.1.3.2
          25 July 2011 at 9:48 pm

          John D. Do you have any evidence of this ? or are you the kind of low life who has to make personal attacks because you can’t win an argument?

          • Blue 4.1.3.2.1
            26 July 2011 at 12:23 pm

            no I don’t think he is, after all he’s not a staffer for the “standard”

      • Drakula 4.1.4
        25 July 2011 at 9:40 pm

        IB I get the impression that a lot of the SIS and the police are secretly sympathetic with these fascists. those raids in the North Island a few years ago would attest to that, wouldn’t you agree?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.4.1
          25 July 2011 at 10:26 pm

          Certain personalities are going to be drawn to official positions where they can use ‘authorised force’ on ‘deserving’ peeps.

    • rosy 4.2
      25 July 2011 at 9:27 pm

      Maybe having this stuff out in the open will make the likes of Brash and Ansell a bit more circumspect in their choice of words. I guess there is some research out there about whether it’s better to expose these views or suppress them. Either way treating them as harmless is clearly not the answer.

      • The Voice of Reason 4.2.1
        25 July 2011 at 9:38 pm

        Good point, Rosy. Brash is going to find it hard to go all Ansell on us again without risking be seen as an extremist. Any attacks on socialism, immigration or Islam are going to sound like something from Breivik’s manifesto. But to not go down the Iwi/Kiwi route risks leaving ACT looking emasculated.
         
        Still, I’d be willing to put 5 bucks on Banks or Calvert saying something stoopid during the campaign that makes the comparison between ACT and the Norwegian nutter inevitable. That’d be fun.

        • mik e 4.2.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 10:03 am

          IT only got them a 1% bounce in the poles but it gave National a bigger BOUNCE making them look moderate.Even though Maori unemployment has more than doubled , in reallity they are taking the brunt of this recession!

    • Gosman 4.3
      26 July 2011 at 7:36 am

      I’m calling you out on this bollocks Toad. Show me just one statement where Don Brash has stated White people are in anyway naturally superior to non-white people.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.1
        26 July 2011 at 8:40 am

        Are you the kind of person where even the obvious has to be explained to you in writing?

      • toad 4.3.2
        26 July 2011 at 8:58 am

        Try this, Gosman:

        British immigrants fit in here very well. My own ancestry is all British. New Zealand values are British values, derived from centuries of struggle since Magna Carta. Those things make New Zealand the society it is. So, people who bring in those values because they imbibe them with their mothers’ milk, almost by definition make good immigrants. …

        But it may well be that when an immigrant seeks citizenship you give them a piece of paper and say, ‘There are the things you’re signing up to when you become a New Zealander, are you comfortable with that?’ We may need to be particularly careful with people who are known to pull a lot of stunts”

        • Gosman 4.3.2.1
          26 July 2011 at 9:00 am

          Ummmmm…. where in that does it state white people are superior to non white people?

          • Colonial Viper 4.3.2.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 9:10 am

            As if a statement is only “racist” if it says exactly that lol

          • toad 4.3.2.1.2
            26 July 2011 at 9:14 am

            I was using the term as meaning the political ideology of social, cultural and political dominance by whites, Gosman.  Usually implicit in that is a belief that white culture is superior.  Although I can’t recall reading anything from Brash explicitly stating that, the dog whistle is pretty obvious.

            • higherstandard 4.3.2.1.2.1
              26 July 2011 at 9:29 am

              “…….the dog whistle is pretty obvious.”

              Oh the irony.

            • Gosman 4.3.2.1.2.2
              26 July 2011 at 9:33 am

              So what you are doing is using a term that you redefine to mean something quite different from what the term actually applies to.

              There are White supremacists in the world Toad. They go around claiming that the White’s are part of a master race and that other races are inferior. It is quite a nasty and irrational view point.

              By your logic anyone could redefine the term to mean anything they desire which essentially debases what the term is about.

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 July 2011 at 9:39 am

                No, not a redefinition, simply understanding how the same attitude is morphed into more acceptable forms, while communicating largely the same message.

              • toad …
                26 July 2011 at 9:42 am

                I’m not redefining anything, Gosman.

                White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance by whites. White supremacy, as with racial supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony…

                • Pete George …
                  26 July 2011 at 9:55 am

                  I don’t agree with any form of white supremacy.

                  I also don’t like shades of brown supremacy I hear here sometimes. I belong in New Zealand as much as anyone else, I wasn’t invited here, and I’m not here due to any other group’s goodwill.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    26 July 2011 at 10:07 am

                    Ah, a variation on Brash’s racist “One law for All”.

                    Who suggested you don’t belong in NZ Pete, or are you making even more shit up?

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 10:13 am

                  Don Brash has not advocated anything at all where he states people of a particular ethnic background are superior. In fact he has advocated the opposite. He believes that all people should be treated equally under the law.

                  Now you can argue that it is not possible or preferable for people to have equal treatment for all sorts of reasons but you can’t deny that Don Brash has stated he wants equal treatment under the law for all, REGARDLESS of ethnic background.

                  He did state that our historical and cultural background means that people from Anglo-Celtic countries are likely to assimilate better but I thought that would be a no brainer. I would also add that our Pacific ethnic background mean people from the Pacific Islands are also more easily accomodated within the NZ context. That stated I like a mix of different cultures so long as they agree with the prevailing cultural views (in N.Z this being Anglo-Celtic and Maori).

                  • weka …
                    26 July 2011 at 10:50 am

                    How is believing that NZ culture is British not white supremacist? NZ culture is a mix of many things, British being simply one of them. His statement specifically excludes Maori cultures from his definition of NZ culture and fits neatly with everything I have seen him say – that Maori must fit into the British dominant NZ society i.e. they’re allowed to be here as long as they’re part of white society. I don’t happen to live in that version of society, and as a pakeha I often find Maori values a much better fit than the British derived ones I inherited. I’m not sure if that is completely beyond his understanding or it just scares him.

                    • rosy …
                      26 July 2011 at 11:09 am

                      Remember the Brash/Clark debate in 2005? The one when he defined mainstream?

                      In the final one-on-one debate last night, Don Brash was asked who was not mainstream. Don Brash said that Helen Clark was not a mainstream New Zealander. And he said that anybody who shares her vision for a vibrant, diverse, progressive New Zealand was also not mainstream.

                      So yeah, it’s not ‘Britishness’ that makes a person superior, but a particular kind of Britishness. In a sense he doesn’t think others are inferior, just not ‘mainstream’, not … right, so to speak (as if there is a difference). It was very clear those who weren’t his definition of ‘mainstream’ didn’t deserve consideration if he was in government. (I reckon he lost the election on that debate).

                    • Vicky32 …
                      26 July 2011 at 7:08 pm

                      How is believing that NZ culture is British not white supremacist? NZ culture is a mix of many things, British being simply one of them

                      Please define British! My father was an English immigrant, my mother an upper-class Scots-descended New Zealander. When we went to school, we were constantly bullied by ‘Kiwi’ kids telling us to “get back to Pomgolia, we don’t want Pommies here”. So in New Zealand, there’s no English influence at all, but the Scottish whinging and hatred is rife! It seems to me from my experience, that New Zealanders define British as English, without realising that British incorporates the Scottishness they love!
                      The Irish are another matter – they seem to hate us even more than the Scots. My son assures me that the Irish aren’t British, whether he’s right or not I don’t know! But no, NZ culture may be British, but it’s not English, so don’t blame us!

                  • rosy …
                    26 July 2011 at 7:21 pm

                    You’re putting words into Brash’s mouth Gosman. He said (in Toad’s link) British. You might want to check his views on the Irish before assuming he meant Anglo-Celtic.

                  • felix …
                    26 July 2011 at 9:18 pm

                    It’s not as simple as that, Gos. Brash doesn’t actually say Maori are inferior, but the other things he says come very close to saying it for him.

                    For example, Maori do worse in school than Pakeha. Why is this?

                    If you ask Brash, he’ll tell you everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. He’ll tell you that nothing in our society favours Pakeha. He’ll tell you that each individual is ultimately responsible for their own circumstance as a result of the choices they make.

                    So why do Maori do worse at school? Brash doesn’t say. And he doesn’t actually say that Maori are inherently inferior.

                    But he does rule out most of the other possible options.

                    • Sam …
                      26 July 2011 at 11:28 pm

                      Brash has been on the record, I believe it was during a debate with Pita Sharples on Maori TV, acknowledging that “the education system has failed Maori”.

                    • Sam …
                      26 July 2011 at 11:28 pm

                      Brash has been on the record, I believe it was during a debate with Pita Sharples on Maori TV, acknowledging that “the education system has failed Maori”.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2011 at 11:41 pm

                      Brash only says what is convenient and befitting of a man who has only ever championed the richest 5%.

              • bbfloyd …
                26 July 2011 at 10:18 am

                i’m starting to realise that your iq hasn’t reached entry level gosman… why don’t you quit while you still have some dignity left… oh bugger,,, too late.

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 10:30 am

                  Bravo for just engaging in a waste of bandwidth for absolutely no rational purpose whatsoever.

                  Would you like to qualify your statements with a little thing called reason or do you believe you are somehow above using this in your arguments?

      • mik e 4.3.3
        26 July 2011 at 10:04 am

        Gosman Islamification Maorification connect the dots

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    25 July 2011 at 8:56 pm

    The classic line is that “the Left is exactly the same, if not worse…”

    They are seeing the entire universe through the lens of their mind and their personality

    So of course it will appear that way to them, they can even sincerely believe it in cases.

    • mik e 5.1
      26 July 2011 at 10:12 am

      The right have way more economic power and use this at every opportunity. ie the Murdoch press the Joyce media works subtly picking away at the left, like one of them is worth many more of the left. Bullying right wing talk show hosts talk show hosts .Who are in the majority by far . continually pushing a right wing agenda ie boot camps.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    25 July 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Christian Identity: The scary religion you don’t know about

    You almost always see the words “paramilitary” or “militia” associated with Christian Identity believers. Why are they so often violent? Their world is an absolute dichotomy: God or Devil. Angel or Satan.

    Do groups like these exist here? Probably. Do we know about them? Nope but we do see some of the same mindset coming from high profile individuals.

    • joe90 6.1
      25 July 2011 at 10:14 pm

      Erik Prince and the last crusade certainly do exist.

      .In an affidavit lodged with a court in Virginia, one of the witnesses said that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.”

  7. Pete George 7
    25 July 2011 at 9:20 pm

    An indication of the blurriness of political polarity it’s worth noting that Breivik sourced a lot of his material from Kaczynski’s (Unabomber) manifesto.

    • Judge Holden 7.1
      25 July 2011 at 9:41 pm

      Absolute rubbish. What it shows is that the Kaczynski was incoherent, but more right-wing conservative than most people think. Breivik stole quotes from him that could have come from Redbaiter.

    • Blighty 7.2
      26 July 2011 at 8:27 am

      he edited anti-leftist screeds from the Unabomber to make them anti Marxist/anti Islamic.

  8. jackal 8
    25 July 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I think Breivik’s brand of terrorism is going to turn a lot more people against such lunacy than it’s going to be a rallying call to the extremist right wing cause.

    Even the clinically insane would have a difficult time justifying such acts. It takes a special type of fanatical insanity to support what Breivik has done, and thankfully they’re a very small minority.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      26 July 2011 at 10:09 am

      Although with thorough planning and automatic weaponry, even a small minority can do massive damage.

      Interesting how the threat to the European way of life has come from inside, not from the much vaunted islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

  9. John D 9
    25 July 2011 at 9:28 pm

    This must be the third article about the massacre that The Standard has used to push its own political agenda.

    Can’t say I am impressed

    • Carol 9.1
      25 July 2011 at 9:34 pm

      The massacre was a political act, to promote a poltical agenda. It was a brutal and devastating attack on left wingers, merely for being members of a left wing political party. And leftwingers shouldn’t have a political response? Oh really?!

      • John D 9.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 9:43 pm

        It was primarily a murder of over 90 kids. But the compassion from this site appears to be zero.

        Three days, three posts, and it’s all about ME,

        Your agenda is actually to make any “right-winger” (by definition, a “right-winger” is anyone who doesn’t agree with your collectivist world view) appear a cold-blooded heartless murder lover.

        Such a shallow and ignorant world-view.

        • Puddleglum 9.1.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 10:05 pm

          “It was primarily a murder of over 90 kids whose only crime was to be a member of the Labour Youth.”

          FIFY

          They wouldn’t have died if they hadn’t been members of Labour Youth so, primarily, this was an attack on Labour Youth not on any random selection of 90 youths. Why are you so reluctant to admit this? That is the only truly “shallow and ignorant world-veiw” being expressed here.

        • ianupnorth 9.1.1.3
          25 July 2011 at 11:31 pm

          And the bomb was placed where? Not outside the HQ of the Norwegian equivalent of ACT!

    • Craig Glen Eden 9.2
      25 July 2011 at 9:41 pm

      What agenda John D other than being anti right wing extremists who are racist and who think that killing kids just has to be done!

      What’s your agenda for posting John D? Because you have added nothing to the discussion, except showing your self to be a pious piece of shit.

      • John D 9.2.1
        25 July 2011 at 9:49 pm

        Craig Glen Eden,

        I am a pious piece of shit, according to you

        This is what I love about you guys. So utterly self-centred and locked up in your masturbatory world of self-pity.

        • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 9:56 pm

          So utterly self-centred and locked up in your masturbatory world of self-pity.

          You Right Wingers are so self revealing 🙂

        • Craig Glen Eden 9.2.1.2
          25 July 2011 at 10:14 pm

          I forgot to add DUMB pious piece of shit! What’s the agenda that you claim?

        • mik e 9.2.1.3
          26 July 2011 at 10:26 am

          JD why are you blogging on this site then. go back to your own right sites and see the Diatribe and hate that directed at any one who dares to disagree with their opinions its just out right abusive and bullying . you reap what you sow but on that lets on the left try and keep it civil no matter what or who winds us up thats what their game is to under mine us! facts and figures and good arguments are far more effective no matter how upset we are.JD a New Zealander is possibly one of the dead. most likely A Labour party supporter so if you have any respect don, t keep wining people up.

    • IrishBill 9.3
      25 July 2011 at 9:52 pm

      Bullshit. A guy who spouts right-wing hate speech about left-wingers like ourselves and then decides to shoot a whole lot of us and you’re trying to claim we’ve got no right to talk about the political implications of this?

      • weka 9.3.1
        26 July 2011 at 11:20 am

        It’s very similar to one of the original campus mass shootings in North America. In the late 80s in Montreal a man went on campus and specifically shot women. At the time feminists were criticised for talking about the murders in terms of gender, as if it was people that were shot not women.

  10. Sam 10
    25 July 2011 at 9:33 pm

    When a psychopath starts firing weapons at innocent people, I would’ve thought the mentality of the person is the problem and not the ideology. When a fanatic attaches themselves a particular end of the political spectrum, what difference does it make?

    • Carol 10.1
      25 July 2011 at 9:36 pm

      It makes a lot of difference to people who might be the target of such attacks.

      • Sam 10.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 9:41 pm

        Wrong.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 9:54 pm

          Right.

          See what I did there? 😛

        • IrishBill 10.1.1.2
          25 July 2011 at 9:55 pm

          No – you’re wrong. When the violence is connected to political hate speech the ideology is very much the problem. Or would you argue that Hitler and Stalin were just crazy and we shouldn’t consider their mass murders as ideological at all?

        • Craig Glen Eden 10.1.1.3
          25 July 2011 at 10:04 pm

          His ideology is what has led him to these actions Sam you dumb shit. This guy does not appear to be insane/suffering from a mental illness he is very similar to Hitler. He was well educated until 2004 was part of a mainstream right wing political party and a polite businessman according to reports. Do you really think he developed his views through sitting round and attending peace conferences or plaining how to save whales, or release pigs from crates.

          Finally lets not forget if this was some left wing activist who had stopped whaling or oil drilling the right wingers would be calling it terrorism.

          Lets not forget he killed children and young adults just because they were at a Labour Party camp. He believed that what they stood for was changing Europe/European culture, his beliefs are not to different from many so called main stream right wing political parties like the Tea Party.

          • Sam 10.1.1.3.1
            25 July 2011 at 10:44 pm

            An individual could become fanatical enough to kill innocents over anything, including whales and pig crates, and that’s my point. If you don’t realize that then your head is in the clouds. You getting hot under the collar over my post shows how easy it is for people to denigrate those that they fundamentally dislike/don’t agree with. Anyway, other people in this thread have expressed my opinion a lot more clearly than me so I’ll leave it at that.

            • McFlock 10.1.1.3.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 12:07 am

              Are you really confusing “being pissed off at wilfull, self-obsessed stupidity” with “killing almost a hundred innocent, defenceless people”?
              Dick.
               
               

              • Tigger …
                26 July 2011 at 10:48 am

                Sam – he targetted people based on their political affiliation. His motivation was based on their identity as left wingers. .

    • rosy 10.2
      25 July 2011 at 9:48 pm

      Sam, the ideology is intertwined with the mindset of the person. According to
      this article :

      The terror of Norway has not come from Islamic extremists. Nor has it come from the far left, even though both these groups have been accused time after time of being the inner threat to our “way of living”. Up to and including the terrifying hours in the afternoon of 22 July, the little terror my country has experienced has come from the far right.

      For decades, political violence in this country has been almost the sole preserve of neo-Nazis and other racist groups. During the 1970s they bombed leftwing bookstores and a May Day demonstration. In the 80s two neo-Nazis were executed because they were suspected of betraying the group. In the past two decades, two non-white Norwegian boys have been died as a result of racist attacks. No foreign group has killed or hurt people on Norwegian territory since the second world war, except for the Israeli security force Mossad, which targeted and killed an innocent man by mistake on Lillehammer in 1973.

      Right from the start of this massacre right-wing extremism was included in the list of possible reasons because in Norway there is a history there of very violent deeds associated with these organisations – not with moderate conservatism or left-wing groups in any degree.

  11. chris73 11
    25 July 2011 at 9:47 pm

    No doubt you’ll remove this post like my previous one [I see no sign of a deleted comment – perhaps you didn’t hit submit properly? r0b] but for those who love wikipedia I’m sure you’ll find this as interesting as I did:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

    and for the definition of terrprism:

    Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

    which links to this homegrown example:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5337961/Minister-slams-anti-1080-cowards

    • mickysavage 11.1
      25 July 2011 at 10:12 pm

      I searched for “terrprism” but could not find a thing.

      • chris73 11.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 10:26 pm

        Haha you so funny

        Almost as funny as the anti-1080 guys beating up Arthur Hinds, big brave guys who probably felt justified and vindicated in their actions

        Actions which they hope will send a message (which you know is the point of terrorism) to others involved in the use of 1080

        So tell me funny guy, what side of the political spectrum do you think those two guys identify with?

        • IrishBill 11.1.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 10:30 pm

          Most of the anti-1080 crowd seem to have the same hatred of government that marks the tea-party right. And I agree that the comments here are often too much – I’m considering cracking down on the abuse.

          [This could be one tough thread to moderate IB. This event was intended to provoke an emotive, gut-level response. Ultimately we become complicit in the act if we indulge it’s perpertrators motives, and I think most of us get that. Yet we struggle to find a meaningful way to respond that isn’t merely weak, or spiteful… and I for one am willing to allow people the space, within reason, to sort through it for themselves…RL]

        • joe90 11.1.1.2
          25 July 2011 at 10:35 pm

          Well Tairua is a rich man’s town so my money is on them being tories.

          • queenstfarmer 11.1.1.2.1
            25 July 2011 at 11:12 pm

            I think you’re thinking of Pauanui, across the harbour

          • mik e 11.1.1.2.2
            26 July 2011 at 10:35 am

            Peter Dunne is the party that the hunting lobby has morphed into and I hate to say but its the National party who are supporting the use of 1080 because of dairying. so far it is the most effective way to deal with possums. Otherwise we wouldn,t have a dairy sector and not much native bush either and I don,t see our people going out into the bush especially in this weather to kill 20-30 million possums a year.LETS KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE SUBJECT AND FACTS

        • weka 11.1.1.3
          26 July 2011 at 11:26 am

          Actions which they hope will send a message (which you know is the point of terrorism) to others involved in the use of 1080
           

          But 1080 activists can hardly be labelled left wing. Most of them are from the hunting lobby and I imagine there is a spectrum of party politics involved.
           
          I’m also not convinced that that attack was terrorism. It looks like assault to me. It’s a fine line, but unless we know who the attackers are and what their motives were then calling it terrorism is hyperbole.

    • Puddleglum 11.2
      25 July 2011 at 10:21 pm

      “I’m sure you’ll find this as interesting as I did”

      I did. It made me reflect that if this atrocity had been carried out by one of the groups listed in the wikipedia entry all right-wingers would certainly have put it down to the political ideology underpinning the person’s action. Hence, in the mind of the right at least, it should be perfectly acceptable to attribute the current event to the deep imbibing of right wing ideology.

      Is that what you thought people would find interesting about the link? 

      BTW, many of the groups mentioned in the link were opposing some very violent regimes, which raises the question of where the climate of violence originated. Last time I looked, Norwegian Labour were not forming death squads to terrorise the local population. 

      • chris73 11.2.1
        25 July 2011 at 10:33 pm

        It seems from the posts and threads that some people on here think right-wing is another name for violent actions

        As wiki has pointed out the left certainly arn’t angels when it comes to that kind of behaviour

        However I don’t think that being left or right makes this people kill or maim, I think they’d kill and maim anyway and they just happen to come across a label which they feel justifies their actions

        Yet it feels like there are some trying to use this tragedy to score points for their side

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 11:28 pm

          Frak you, a mass political assassination targeting Norwegian Young Labour.

          So we’re gonna hold a little discussion on why extremist Right Wing both fantasize about and carry out righteous self justified violence against people they see as their enemies.

          Is that OK by you? Mate?

          • chris73 11.2.1.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:29 am

            Whatever, why don’t you try looking for a conspiracy theory

            Dork

            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 10:47 am

              We don’t have to look for a conspiracy theory, the shooter published it as his ‘manifesto’.

        • ianupnorth 11.2.1.2
          25 July 2011 at 11:42 pm

          Chris compare and contrast http://englishdefenceleague.org/

          If you, like us, are fed up and sick to the back teeth of Islamic Extremism in the UK, then sign up and join the struggle with the English Defence League and start protesting peacefully with us today.

          (yeah right, they are just so peaceful) and http://uaf.org.uk

          for anyone who opposes national socialism (nazis), fascism, xenophobia and racism.

          The EDL are a vengeful bunch of thugs with big money backers.

          • chris73 11.2.1.2.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:35 am

            Whats your point?

            Are there violent (and possibly evil) right-wing aligned groups out there?

            Absolutely, no arguements there but my point is its not being right-wing that makes you this way, you are that way already and all you’re doing is finding something to base your hatred on yet from some on the posts on here some people believe that being right-wing is akin to being a terrorist

            I could easily find an extremist left wing group and say “haha look all lefties are evil and heres a group to prove it” but my point remqains the same

            Being a leftie doesn’t make you evil (being a numpty is a different story), again its just another convienent hook for that person to use

            • Ianupnorth 11.2.1.2.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 10:47 am

              Sorry, the Anti nazi league were only ever violent towards the racists, no other group; the racists in the EDL are violent to anyone who does not  support their cause.

            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.2.1.2
              26 July 2011 at 10:55 am

              ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ is a lame way of viewing the issue.

              Right wingers have personalities which enjoy applying punitive measures to people who do not fit in with their views or belief systems, people that they believe they are inherently superior to, people who are inherently a threat to or out of place in the conservative order that they believe in.

              This is why the ‘lazy dole bludger’ or ‘breeding DPB mum’ memes appeal so well to the Right Wing.

              And if you can start applying punitive measures and punishments to those inferior groups of deadbeat losers, all the better, because they clearly ‘deserve’ that treatment.

              As you go further Right, then increasingly severe and authoritarian means are OK to apply sanctions to those inferior groups. Outright harrassment and intimidation is quite OK since these inferior individuals are frequently a drain or a threat to the economic health and acceptable standards in society, and that should not be tolerated.

              Anything which can be done to get rid of these inferior people (and the race, political and societal traitors who insist on helping them) will clearly make society a better place, for those who rightfully deserve to be here.

  12. Pete George 12
    25 July 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Does “The violent right” refer to a very small minority of extreme right wingers who promote violence, or is it an attempt to label the whole right as violent? My guess is a bob each way while playing to an audience.

    • IrishBill 12.1
      25 July 2011 at 9:58 pm

      It refers to a growing section of the right who substitute violence, violent imagery, threats and intimidation for rational political discourse. I include most of Kiwiblog’s comments sections, the Tea Party and the anti-immigration templarists in that group.

      • Pete George 12.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 10:06 pm

        Funny thing is I find it much easier to discuss and debate freely (and without violence) on KB than I do here. Sure, there are a few who throw a bit of violent language around, but it’s direct and easy top give a direct response. Deviousness, coercion and power tripping may be non violent but they can be more insidious.

        • queenstfarmer 12.1.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 11:19 pm

          There are nuts on both sides (and nice, neat labels like “Left” and “Right” often don’t fit the nuts).

          But I tend to agree with Chris Trotter’s observations here:
          http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2011/03/oh-for-well-mannered-left.html

          “WHY IS IT that I can get a friendlier discussion about New Zealand politics out of an ACT regional conference than I can out of practically any gathering of New Zealand lefties? …

          Why is the Left so bloody unpleasant?“

          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2011 at 11:23 pm

            Because the LEFT are not here to make FRIENDS with the tptb SCREWING US

            (and we don’t have money to hire smooth PR types to do our communications for us)

            • ianupnorth 12.1.1.1.1.1
              25 July 2011 at 11:46 pm

              Because we are all envious, so you lot say.
               
              Or could it just because being kept down, cheated, lied to, abused, used as cannon fodder and generally shafted by the elite, and, having a set of principles that you are willing to stand up and defend makes you ever so more ready to argue your point.

          • Jum 12.1.1.1.2
            25 July 2011 at 11:54 pm

            queenstfarmer,

            You want unpleasant; remember the Labour-hating killer in Norway who used illegal dum dum bullets that rip your insides apart – that really was ‘unpleasant’.

          • mik e 12.1.1.1.3
            26 July 2011 at 10:46 am

            QSTF that may be at a conference but you look at any blog its the reverse is true there is some Quite Nasty stuff out their mostly from the right ie look at some of the comments on John Paganni,s site. The standard is quiet reasonable their are only a couple of blogger s who tend to get guttural they are not doing the cause any favors usually we win most arguments with well researched facts. And if we are going to win this argument we have to take the higher ground. Theirs no harm in humor especially political satire which is sadly lacking in the mainstream television these days

        • wtl 12.1.1.2
          26 July 2011 at 12:50 am

          Deviousness, coercion and power tripping may be non violent but they can be more insidious.

          I’d take a bit of deviousness, (non-violent) coercion and power tripping over being shot any day. Are you saying you wouldn’t?

          Furthermore, I’d suggest that the reason you have a better experience on Kiwiblog than here is that your political views (or ‘debating’ style) are more in tune with those of the commenters there. On that basis, you ‘get along’ better with them are less likely to be abused. But I don’t visit Kiwiblog, and have no intention of doing so, so that is merely my supposition based on the impression I get of your political views and the tone of the comments section in Kiwiblog.

      • chris73 12.1.2
        25 July 2011 at 10:06 pm

        You’ll refuse to believe it but theres more hate and vitriol spouted on this site towards those that don’t agree with the leftie views expressed then there is on kiwiblog

        Some (but not all) regular posters on here are extremely rude and believe that because anyone who is disagreeing with them must be right-wing and therefore evil then anything they (the lefties) say is justifiable

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          25 July 2011 at 11:25 pm

          Yeah we’re rude to you asshole

          On the other hand, we won’t dress up like a police officer and pop a cap in your ass, and then put another one into you between the eyes just to make sure you are properly gone, Norway Island Resort style.

          Is that a satisfactory compromise buddy?

          • wtl 12.1.2.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 1:03 am

            Indeed. I’m sick these comments equating a bit of verbal abuse with violence. FFS, learn to cope with it a little. Yes, it might be a bit unpleasant, but you can always just choose to ignore it. Having someone threaten violence, on the other hand, is not easily ignored. Especially with the Norway case showing that these may not simply be empty threats.

            • chris73 12.1.2.1.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 8:43 am

              My point being (which as lefties you convienently ignore) is that this site is a more nasty, childish, spiteful place then kiwiblog is

              You lefties do get a bit of the verbals when you come across and post (nothing compared to here though) because you bring the same attitude from this site across as well

              If you left the attitude behind and debated the issues you’d find its quite a reasonable site

              You lot should try being a bit more open to new ideas

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 July 2011 at 11:18 am

                You lot should try being a bit more open to new ideas

                Doesn’t seem likely we’re going to be open to Labour Party Youth Movmement members being shot to death now, is it?

                If you left the attitude behind and debated the issues you’d find its quite a reasonable site

                Not here to meet your standards of what is “reasonable” and acceptable in attitude, thanks.

                We’re here to find out why the Right Wing can be so bloody and violent, even in the middle of a sound western social democracy.

              • lprent …
                26 July 2011 at 12:23 pm

                Hey chris – have a look at the comments directed at me in the post at KB I commented in yesterday about bomber. Only a few dealt with the issues and those I mostly answered (even that idiot Whaleoil). However most of them were just pointless. From memory Clint Heine, scubone, Kimble, et al were far more nasty, childish, and spiteful than anything that would be tolerated here for any length of time – because they lacked any point. Probably because they had insufficient intelligence to anything more than grunt?

                Perhaps you should remove the blinkers (and stop writing things that cause you to fall into the spam traps)

    • mickysavage 12.2
      25 July 2011 at 10:01 pm

      Who gives a fuck Pete.  Go away and get a soul.  Stop trying to debate an atrocity to the left that we are all still feeling.

    • mik e 12.3
      27 July 2011 at 1:17 pm

      The right pander to these extremists and use the same sort of rhetoric. ie Sarah Palin Cross hairs, Don Brash Maorification/muslimification, Sarah Bachman saying Black children are worse of now than they were under slavery .Then we have the right wing dominated media especially the shock jocks winding up the rhetoric even further! then we have the apologists and excuser,s undermining the truth coming on to this site trying to beat down any one who complains!

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    25 July 2011 at 10:03 pm

    I’ll add here that the authoritarian mind set can go politically Left or Right, but the Right Wing ones feel particularly justified and self righteous about the use of force and coercion (e.g. bullying, punishing, torturing, victimising, harassing, liquidating, eliminating) against those they see as “deserving it”.

    You might be seen as poor, old, lazy, a woman, a slut, Asian, Black, Jewish, Arab, homosexual, etc. and be seen to “deserve it”.

    • chris73 13.1
      25 July 2011 at 10:12 pm

      So how many communist and socialist countries should I name that have leaders that feel particularly justified and self righteous about the use of force and coercion (e.g. bullying, punishing, torturing, victimising, harassing, liquidating, eliminating) against those they see as “deserving it” to make the point that right-wing violence and terror is no better or worse then left-wing terrorism

      • mik e 13.1.1
        28 July 2011 at 2:21 pm

        WE on the left don,t like totalitarian suedo communists anymore than we like the very large contingent of and well financed extremists on the far right who are given a free hand by th likes of Palin Bachman brash and all the shock jock,s that are their cheerleaders Murdoch etc, We on the left have very few resources very few numbers and don,t want to be seen as the baddies . While we have shock jocks spouting in the US absolutely deplorable stuff! thats inciting hatred we don,t see any outrage from the murdoch media he,s used it to take the heat of his own oligarchy.

    • chris73 13.2
      25 July 2011 at 10:52 pm

      Why was my original post removed? Free speech my arse. [For the second time – I see no sign of a deleted comment from you. Suggest you didn’t hit the submit button properly. r0b]

      Anyway left wing leaders are just as “good” as right wing leaders in the use of force to protect their tyranny

      Ever consider that its not what political leaning they are thats the problem (nowhere in my VRWC handbook does it say terrorism is good) but that they’re screwed in the head and if they’re not dealt with (however you want to deal with them) then they’ll cause problems

  14. QoT 14
    25 July 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Damn, IB. I was hoping you’d not join the ever-growing list of Standard writers to throw around words like “loon” and “batshit crazy” to describe someone whose actions you simultaneously want to ascribe to logical, “sane” causes.

    Yes, rightwing extremism is a problem. Yes, violent hate speech should be challenged whenever possible. But either those two statements are true, and there’s a societal problem which society needs to confront, OR certain people are just obviously crazy and dangerous and therefore should be pre-emptively locked up because we can all tell they’re not stable, amirite?

    It’s probably obvious I’ve got an axe to grind in this fight, but here’s the thing, it’s two axes. One about casual fucking ableism which makes the lives of people with mental illness shittier than it has to be, and one about the sheer fucking laziness of writing off violent, terrorising extremists as “nutters”. If we allow that people like Breivik or Jared Lougher are just irrational/mentally ill/crazy/insert slur here, we deny ourselves the right to call that shit out, because the extreme Glenn Beck types who egg them on will just say “Oh, but they’re craaaaaaaaazy, it has nothing to do with my continual eliminationist rhetoric”.

    So I’m going to get on my soapbox and plead with y’all. You’ve got an opportunity to deny hate-speakers an excuse to ignore the consequences of their actions, and you get to make the world a better place.

    • mickysavage 14.1
      25 July 2011 at 10:24 pm

      I think QoT that lefties are trying to rationalise what happened and cannot.  Therefore we reach out for justifications.

      I agree that those who suffer from mental conditions should not have their plight worsened by Breivik’s actions.  He does not impress me as being challenged, just evil.  He is the closest thing I have struck to an argument for capital punishment.

      “Nutter” is a phrase used by the left wing to preserve the possibility that a person’s character reflects a deprived background rather than innate worthlessness.  The trouble is that if some people are innately unworthy then the rich and powerful will be emboldened and may think their air of superiority is justified.

      • Craig Glen Eden 14.1.1
        25 July 2011 at 10:33 pm

        I find my self agreeing with both of you Qot and Mickey.

        • Policy Parrot 14.1.1.1
          25 July 2011 at 11:31 pm

          QoT – while I agree with the essence of what you are saying, there is a reason why I would prefer that these people continued to be referred to as madmen:

          “The general population at large usually becomes dismissive of any type of political agenda that the complicit individual ascribes to.”

          Thus, the point is to deny them exactly what they seek – the promotion (through negative attention – any publicity is good publicity mantra) of their ideological and political standpoint. When people start talking about political motives of such individuals, it can risk giving their actions some legitimacy among those who might be sympathetic.

          It doesn’t mean that these people can’t be completely thoroughly rational/calculated in their thought processes.

          • Policy Parrot 14.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2011 at 11:44 pm

            It doesn’t mean that those in the know ignore the calculated and targeted nature of this attack, but to avoid a kind of political matyrdom, like those among us on the left might feel for Salvador Allende.

          • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.2
            26 July 2011 at 12:01 am

            When people start talking about political motives of such individuals, it can risk giving their actions some legitimacy among those who might be sympathetic.

            Perhaps its a risk worth taking.

            Your quiet quiet approach works best if what this guy did is truly a once off outlier, with little chance of others following up, and no wider ‘movement’ operating around him. Giving him or his ideas airtime would be like giving a wacky climate change denier air time. As you say it may add to legitimacy and sympathy where none is deserved.

            HOWEVER

            What if there are thousands (or tens of thousands) of people in the country who sympathise with the ideas and the themes (even if they disagree with the killers specific actions), and feel like there are legitimate grievances.

            Now this is quite a different problem. Ignoring or suppressing it may work for a while. But not indefinitely, because here is a section of your society which will eventually choose to make itself heard in one way or another.

            My understanding is that anti-immigrant feeling in the Eurozone is not rare, and sometimes conservative Right Wing extremist groups get traction.

          • Angie 14.1.1.1.3
            31 July 2011 at 5:54 am

            Not wanting to give his political agenda more juice is a worthy goal. Doing it by perpetuating the stereotype that people with mental illnesses are violent and dangerous is an attack on people with mental illnesses that we can do without. Furthermore, describing all violent people as ‘just crazy’ or similar undermines the whole concept of justice, since it implies that no one who does something wrong could possibly be responsible for their actions.

            The guy was not crazy – he made a logical, reasoned decision to do something evil. I have a mental illness, but I’ve never shot up a bunch of teenagers, and I’d prefer that the condition I live with every day not be used as a synonym for ‘being a murderer’.

            • IrishBill 14.1.1.1.3.1
              31 July 2011 at 8:19 am

              “Evil” is an absolutist term conservatives use to push responsibility for societal problems onto individuals. I don’t believe in evil.

              • higherstandard …
                31 July 2011 at 8:22 am

                You must have led a very sheltered life IB.

                The older I get the more I believe in evil…….. and good of course.

                • IrishBill …
                  31 July 2011 at 8:36 am

                  I’ve seen plenty of shitty stuff in my time HS but I’ve never seen anything that required “evil” to explain it.

                  • higherstandard …
                    31 July 2011 at 8:57 am

                    I should tee you up a beer with the coroner up in Auckland and one of the chaps I know who works in forensic psychiatry

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 July 2011 at 1:26 pm

                      Great, you telling me that these professionals use “evil” as an explanation for what they see in their day to day roles???

                    • higherstandard …
                      31 July 2011 at 1:52 pm

                      Don’t be a dick CV, what I was saying was that some of the things they’ve come into contact with they’ve described as evil.

                      Perhaps you’d like to try to do their job instead of playing politics on the interwebs 24/7 ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 July 2011 at 2:27 pm

                      So in their professional roles you have heard them say they that they have come into contact with evil?

                      I’m not trying to pin anything on you mate, and I am fully aware that sometimes its difficult not to ascribe a moral (or spiritual/religious?) dimension to the work that one does.

              • Angie …
                31 July 2011 at 1:05 pm

                Replace it with some word you’re more comfortable with then, if you take issue with that one, but the point stands – what he did was not crazy, it was murder, and as a crazy person who doesn’t run around shooting at children, I’d like people to recognise the difference.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 July 2011 at 1:31 pm

                  +1

                  Not unlike a group of highly trained people discussing how to most efficiently firebomb an enemy city making sure that there is a minimal chance of civilian survivors.

    • IrishBill 14.2
      25 July 2011 at 10:27 pm

      Quite right QoT. Noted and edited.

    • Puddleglum 14.3
      25 July 2011 at 10:40 pm

      Agreed on both your points, although I find the term ‘mental illness’ itself very offensive since the consequences of human suffering cannot be properly represented by the clinical distractor term of ‘illness’ in any sensible conceptualisation and, as a term, it diminishes the role of a person’s humanity in their action.

      In Irishbill’s defence (though, of course, he can speak for himself) he pointed out that the ‘experts’ have found little that is ‘irrational’ about his behaviour (which there isn’t, if you begin from the extreme assumptions he presumably did).

      Also, when I read “batshit crazy right-wing loon” my assumption was that these adjectives referred to the particular version of right-wingery rather than to the person. I might have that wrong, of course, but that was my reaction.

      There’s nothing necessarily ‘crazy’ about killing 90 innocent people. In fact, if someone had truly lost all control over their thought processes and reactions I doubt whether they would ever have been that effective. The proper word is ‘evil’ – but not in its misinterpretation as the internal moral state of an individual but, rather, as the toxic pustulation of a society that happens to find its outlet in particular individuals, as it always will.

      Edit: It is also worth noting that he did not turn the gun on himself at the end of it all. This was no violent-depressive, going out in a blaze of spectacle act.

      • ianupnorth 14.3.1
        25 July 2011 at 11:54 pm

        Correct; and also, what were the pre-cursors? In other large scale shootings (e.g. Columbine, Dunblane, Whitehaven) there had been other actions by other people that had influenced and precipitated the actions of the shooter(s).
        Questions need to be asked of how and where Anders Behring Breivik formed his opinions; with freedom of speech you need opposing views, but not to the extent that those views end up in violence like this. I have frequently stated that I wouldn’t mind hitting various people in the face with a frying pan, but as far as I know I am not rushing out to buy a non-stick specially for that purpose!

    • Campbell Larsen 14.4
      26 July 2011 at 12:44 pm

      For those that support mental health awareness:

      https://www.facebook.com/globalmentalhealthawareness

  15. not who I was 15
    25 July 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Free speech isn’t about having a conversation with someone who prefers to shout abuse just to wind you up (or, frighteningly, because they believe it). I walk away from those conversations and I walk away from poorly moderated blogs like this one.
    [And then there are plenty, even on this very thread, who think we over-moderate. I guess if we can keep about equal numbers of people grizzling either way, we will have struck the balance about right. …RL]

    • ianupnorth 15.1
      25 July 2011 at 11:49 pm

      Bye then! Maybe they allow more open debate here than they do on KB.

    • burt 15.2
      26 July 2011 at 12:05 am

      Thankfully this blog isn’t run like RedAlert.

      It would be all; Here here… I agree…. Well said Trevor…. Spud says – right on Trev!… then perhaps a slight quip about Dunne’s hair and back to patting each other on the back….

      I guess it’s better than NoRightTurn – just. You get some fun watching your comments stay in moderation then vanish.

  16. Descendant Of Smith 16
    25 July 2011 at 11:59 pm

    From one of the recent Scientific American publications:

    “In reality , severely mentally ill people account for only 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes in the general population”.

    There are plenty of other sources as well that will give similar results.

    The article further notes that “an individual with a severe psychological disorder is more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of violence”

    Anyone who has worked for any time in the disability sector will know this is true.

    Drugs, alcohol, religion and rhetoric are far more likely to induce violence than mental illness any day.

    In my experience the majority of the people I have known over the years who used violent language and display violent behaviour are those on the right of the spectrum. If I simply take my rugby playing days those who used violence on the field were inevitably to the conservative right of the spectrum – with racism, sexism and anti-homosexuality and anti – any thing that wasn’t them.

    The exception for me was the 1981 Springbok tour where despite liking and playing rugby and disliking and disagreeing with apartheid I received much abuse and some violence from complete strangers for simply being a rugby player. It showed me that at times the left – despite all the talk of community can be violent and obnoxious as well.

    Once you believe in your own head that you are fighting the good cause it’s not too big a step to kill and no doubt is perfectly rational.

  17. rosy 17
    26 July 2011 at 12:03 am

    An interesting snippet is has been reported on the Guardian …

    It has emerged from police interviews of Breivik this weekend that his goal was to start his massacre during the visit of Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway’s prime minister through much of the 1980s and 1990s and leader of the World Health Organisation from 1998 to 2003.

    Brundtland held a speech for the summer camp on Friday between 11:10 and 12:40 and remained on the island talking to the teenagers for several hours afterwards.

    It’s not certain what delayed the gunman.
    BTW he’s not getting to spout his views in public court – security issues was the excuse for a closed hearing.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      26 July 2011 at 12:10 am

      I’m just sorry that there wasn’t an unexpected VIP or two who dropped in that day.

      One instance where John Key’s entourage might have had something useful to do.

    • Pete George 17.2
      26 July 2011 at 6:43 am

      BTW he’s not getting to spout his views in public court – security issues was the excuse for a closed hearing.

      Great that he was denied a platform to promote his crap. He’s denied a heck of a lot of people a heck of a lot more.

  18. Animal Rights Activist 18
    26 July 2011 at 12:22 am

    I’m done with this blog. It’s barely been one week and you are already using the tragedy as an opportunity to attack the right. I hate right wing greed politics and the National and ACT supporting farmers who have absolute zero regard for the welfare of animals and the environment but the past few days has been a new low for The Standard. Perhaps I would not have paid as much attention to this tragedy if not for the fact that I have Norwegian friends, but through that I am now able to see the total lack of compassion or empathy this blog shows to a grieving nation, instead finding it appropriate to use their grief as a channel for your political views, like Andres did through his (far worse) actions.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      26 July 2011 at 12:35 am

      Members of NZ Labour show unyielding solidarity to our brothers and sisters in the Norwegian Labour Party at this very difficult time of grief.

      ” C’est la lutte finale
      Groupons-nous, et demain
      L’Internationale
      Sera le genre humain”

    • Draco T Bastard 18.2
      26 July 2011 at 2:35 am

      Oh noes, political action got a political response, WAAAAH!!!

      /sarcasm

      Go read The Authoritarians and you’ll learn that such aggression is a large part of the right-wing make up. Not all of them will go so far as the terrorist in Norway did but it does need to be pointed out that that aggression is there and that something needs to be done about it.

    • Blighty 18.3
      26 July 2011 at 8:36 am

      “Andres”?

      On a misspelled first name basis, are we?

      By the way, you show up here, you call yourself a leftie with a very odd handle, and your only comments are to whine that Key shouldn’t be criticised for trying to take advantage of the massacre and no-one should point to the link between the Right’s violent rhetoric and violent actions, and each time you threaten never to come back.

      A wolf in sheep’s clothing, methinks.

      • Colonial Viper 18.3.1
        26 July 2011 at 11:21 am

        A sewer rat in sheeps clothing 😛

        • McFlock 18.3.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 12:59 pm

          Nah – probably just another hippie with closeted tory tendencies.
          ARA will probably end up creating an “encounter space” where PETA and Greenpeace can get together and plan their protests, rented nightly at market rates and maintained by Comunity Service prisoners, of course. But because the walls are pastel and the furniture covering is corduroy, ARA will delude themselves into thinking they’re part of the green revolution, not the rapacious establishment.

  19. Bart 19
    26 July 2011 at 12:28 am

    The Violent Right? Now just hold on please.

    That this man in Norway holds right wing views is not an issue, but violence is violence. It is not a right wing view or a left wing view that propogates it, but the number one cause of violence is INTOLERANCE!

    So, let’s not start labelling violence as from the right or from the left. I abhor the need to find a label for this blatant thuggery! And the intolerance shown by many of your moderators does you no favours either!

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      26 July 2011 at 8:36 am

      Politics provides a vehicle for power and self righteousness; ‘intolerance’ only describes one small piece of Breivik and his ideology.

      Remember – he didn’t kill foreigners or blacks. He killed his own kind, young people of his own skin colour, creed, language and culture.

      So, let’s not start labelling violence as from the right or from the left. I abhor the need to find a label for this blatant thuggery

      1) Breivik’s violence is from the Political Right and he will have nationalist and political supporters on that end of the spectrum.

      2) This was not an act of “thuggery”, this was a premeditated, methodical, mass political assassination. Please use accurate descriptors. Breivik did not use stand over tactics and punch someone to intimidate them – that would be simple “thuggery”.

      Instead what he did do was try and terminate the lives of political opponents, and the future of a political party he was opposed to using lethal and extreme means.

    • Blighty 19.2
      26 July 2011 at 8:37 am

      his intolerant views are rightwing, ultra-conservative views. That’s what conservatism is: intolerance of diversity and change. Liberalism is the opposite, it tolerates diversity and change.

      Clues are in the names.

      • Pete George 19.2.1
        26 July 2011 at 8:52 am

        You’re talking about extremes under those labels, that doesn’t apply to most people who in reality are some mix of both.

        • Colonial Viper 19.2.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 8:55 am

          We’re not talking about ordinary political players Left and Right.

          We are talking about violent Right Wing extremists.

          Whom at this time have killed far far more civilians in Europe than say, Islamic terrorists, Al Queda, etc. and apparently have a manual circulating around exhorting for more of the same.

          • Pete George 19.2.1.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 9:00 am

            So it would have been a lot more clear (and perhaps honest) to call this post Violent Right Wing Extremists.

            • Colonial Viper 19.2.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 9:14 am

              Pete George is setting the standards for honesty! Everyone listen up to what he has to say! 😀

              Over time I imagine that we’ll start drilling down into more typical levels of Right Wing violence e.g. bullying, victimisation, harassment, intimidation, fear mongering etc.

      • Craig Glen Eden 19.2.2
        26 July 2011 at 9:33 am

        Bart you have no idea what stupid shit you are spouting. This guy just killed at least 68 people. He is not a thug he is a mass murder! Can you not see the difference?

        If I take a gun and shout people in the NZ National Party like say John Key and their youth wing that would make me a mass murderer with a political motive.

        If I go to his office and start threatening his families safety or his, unless he does what I want him to do or maybe push him around at Waitangi that would make me a thug

        Oh and while we are at it, it is often tolerance that allows people with outrageous views that get left unchallenged the fertile ground they need to grow. As I have said before this guy didnt hang out with people who wanted to save animals.

  20. Jenny 20
    26 July 2011 at 5:52 am

    That the only two terrorist attacks to occur on New Zealand soil were aimed at the left is warning enough.

    Both times the state forces, police, SIS, and the judiciary, were inept, the main perpetrators escaping justice. In the case of the Rainbow Warrior bombing those that were actually caught, (mainly by efforts of the public) were treated with kid gloves by the state. For these terrorists, their reward was a tropical Island holiday with conjugal long stays and early release.

    The actual bombers themselves were in the hands of the New Zealand police in Norfolk Island, who were even able to board the Ovea, but who unaccountably decided to let their suspects set sail, to be picked up by a French Nuclear submarine waiting offshore.

    Though identified these other terrorists were never charged.

    In the case of the trades hall bombing in which Ernie Abbot died the terrorist is still out there, free to strike again. Just waiting for the right wing rhetoric to ramp him up again.

    Compare this to the state paranoia and hysteria against Tuhoe.

    It is in this environment that right wing terror grows.

    • Pete George 20.1
      26 July 2011 at 7:00 am

      Compare this to the state paranoia and hysteria against Tuhoe.

      It is in this environment that right wing terror grows.

      What about the paranoia and hysteria expressed on this post?

      I hope it is just an outlet for anger and people here are lashing out at anyone they can label an enemy, but I find it very offensive and potentially inflammatory trying to blame all of “the right”, David Farrar, Kiwiblog, National and Act for what one person did in Norway.

      I’d bet that 99%+ of New Zealanders have been shocked and horrified by what happened in Norway. Using that tragedy for political opportunism and trying to promote extreme political division is abhorrent.

      This post is an attack on the majority of New Zealanders. It’s obviously on a far lesser scale than what happened in Norway, but are the intentions are also abhorrent – probably more on the scale of Act’s attack on Maori and women, except by people purportedly representing a much larger group.

      Once the lashing out is over I hope some reason and reasonableness will replace the rage.

      • IrishBill 20.1.1
        26 July 2011 at 7:16 am

        No Pete, it’s a post pointing out that the very specific (and very violent) templar/anti-islam right-wing beliefs held by Breivik are also held by people in New Zealand. Show me where I’m attacking “half of New Zealand”.

        • Pete George 20.1.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 7:45 am

          You reference “it’s rife in the comments of national party blogger David Farrar” which seems to be trying to link the National Party to the problem. And particularly you reference “the violent right” as a sweeping label, what many on this blog would label “the right” have over 50% poll support at the moment.

          This sounds like you are trying to label the whole right in New Zealand as violent, when only a very small minority express political violence. And only a small minority on Kiwiblog express political violence and that is almost always challenged by others.

          Maybe you don’t know much about what KB is really like these days – it has been worse but the main culprits have long gone to the likes of CR. Getting in amongst it on KB and challenging crap whenever it occurs is surely more effective than trying a swathe of smearing from a distance, that only feeds a baying mob and is more likely to inflame the situation.

          • mickysavage 20.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:01 am

            Ha PeteG you have just done what you have accused the left and this site of doing.

            You have taken a comment out of context, twisted it, added a sprinkle of innuendo and come up with crap.

            The phrase “it’s rife in the comments of national party blogger David Farrar” links to a number of posts where Farrar has talked about “radical Islam”.  I am amazed how many there are.  Irish’s comment is perfectly appropriate and the proof is for all to see.
            But you have chosen to ignore the link and claim Irish is trying to say it is National’s fault where he has said no such thing.  Also just to be clear there is no claim that “the violent right” is “the right”.  It is obviously a subset. 

            Intellectually dishonest doncha think? 

            • Pete George 20.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 8:46 am

              And what do those people who don’t bother clicking on the link see? Many people don’t click links. If there was no intention to conect Farrar or National they didn’t even need to be named.

              You try being honest.

              And it’s not “rife” on Kiwiblog, claiming that is either ignorant of reality or dishonest.

              • McFlock …
                26 July 2011 at 1:11 pm

                Pete,
                I’ve been on KB a couple of times. I thought the first time that maybe I’d hit it on a particularly bad day. Nope. KB honestly put me in mind of dehumanisation propoganda campaigns of the past – not their accompanying atrocities, just the vitriol seemed to be on a par.
                 
                That is why I never go there. I’m not afraid of robust debate, but rabid dehumanisation of entire sectors of humanity, be they beneficiaries or Islamic, makes me want to puke.

                Farrar’s links with NACT are well known. To argue that one is not tarred with the same brush as the other is particularly idiotic. I say this not because you are right wing, or any other reason than that you, as an individual, seem to be either a complete idiot or maybe a particularly inept astroturfer. In your favour, I believe the former. Far be it for me to cast aspersions on your integrity.

                • Pete George …
                  26 July 2011 at 1:54 pm

                  I’ve thought I’ve struck quite a few bad days on The Standard. From comments I’ve see around it’s not an uncommon experience. It can be a very unwelcoming place.

                  I’ve also struck a lot of bad days at KB, especially in the first year or so I was there. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad now.

                  Do you think it’s best just to leave somewhere like KB to run amok with extremists? I don’t. That’s why I’ve persevered there, and I’ve contested and confronted a lot of crap. And that sometimes gets results. A large number of my posts were due to running battles with Redbaiter. He and a few of the worst eventually gave up and went off to CR.

                  Yesterday someone posted “Pete you have been a right fucking c*nt the last couple of days, please cease being a useful idiot or fuck off and die.”

                  “I cannot express enough my utter disgust and contempt that you would use this event to reflect on Redbaiter or anyone else’s blog posting.”

                  I’d been saying similar things to what’s been posted and supported here regarding hate and violence posts on blogs.

                  A couple of years ago that would have resulted in a pack fight versus one, this time it was pretty much a lone snipe that was called out by someone else.

                  Call me an inept astroturfer if you like but I think I’ve done a fuck of a lot more to actually confront blog crap and try and deal with it than some of the cowards on here who hissy fit if their own crap is highlighted and questioned.

                  Yes, KB has had and still has some over robust commenting and abuse. As much as TS has smug arrogance, abuse and harrassment – supported by moderators. Both blogs can be as bad as each other in their own ways at rejecting and ejecting anyone who tries to speak out against the mob. Both can be a part of the worst of our politics.

                  Parties and political blogs should act a damn sight more responsible and grown up. If we directed most of this energy and effort into doing something positive then we might start to make some real progress in New Zealand – all of us, not just have turns at being winners and losers and perpetual shit fighters.

                  [lprent: supported by moderators.

                  I get the impression that you and a few others can sit there and read and write this stuff all day – therefore getting it in small blocks. But I’m usually doing it for 10-15 minutes every 3-4 hours and scanning a few hundred comments at a time. Moreover I’m doing it in my breaks from coding. Repetitive drivel just annoys me at the best of times. But when I’ve been coding I long to shove anything repetitive into a reusable function and hide it.

                  Your job is called “don’t bore us” with tired old tactics and arguments. I have to read the comments – for you it is optional. If I find that comments are getting too damn repetitive then I will deliberately rev up people to do better. I will do it quite offensively to make sure the message gets heeded and so I don’t have to repeat the message too often.

                  The trick for people so afflicted is to learn not to attract my moderating attention. Many here from all sides have survived it.. ]

                  • wtl …
                    26 July 2011 at 2:15 pm

                    It is true that you are abused a lot here. But I think you are still failing to see the reason why. It’s not so much your political views as your debating style. I find it completely lacks good faith. You do raise good points sometimes, but when others disagree with you I have never seen you acknowledge that they have a point, or accept their arguments and agree that you were initially wrong.

                    To me it just seems highly arrogant and, like many others, I do not see any point in debating with someone who refuses to budge one single bit. It is like shouting at a brick wall. That is not to say you are the only one that behaves like this, obviously some of the left-leaning commenters here do the same. But as a left leaning site, obviously they do not encounter the same level of abuse from other commenters as that you do.

                    I have seen responses to your comments over here evolve over time. Initially I think you were treated better than you are treated now. However, as the regulars here started to understand your modus operandi, fewer and fewer are bothering to respond with any substance. Instead, many have just resorted to calling you names and telling you to go away. While you undoubtedly find this disturbing, I think the fact they you refuse to acknowledge that your behaviour may be contributing to your treatment here is telling.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 July 2011 at 2:21 pm

                      Initially I think you were treated better than you are treated now.

                      Rubbish. As soon as I came here I was labeled a rightie and attacked on that basis.

                      I’m well aware that my behaviour contributes to my treatment. No one likes a light shone on stupidity, including me (and I know I make mistakes at times). But it’s not only criticism that I get.

                    • lprent []
                      26 July 2011 at 3:59 pm

                      Ah no – at least not by me.

                      As I remember it I referred to you as being like a astroturfer. Plastering the same opinions with minor variations over and over again as if repetition would make them become the new orthodoxy. It reminded me of a primary school teacher I had before the “New Maths” came in and consigned some of the damn rote learning to the dustbin of educational teaching.

                      There are a number of other commentators that do the same from both the left and the right and several other directions as well. But only CV probably comes close to what you were doing in terms of volume of output, but with less repetition than what you were doing then.

                      You have gotten a lot better since then. Now you frequently merely look sanctimonious – which tends to attract the antibodies but not the moderators.

                    • wtl …
                      26 July 2011 at 2:31 pm

                      Fair enough. You obviously would know better than me. I was just giving you my honest opinion and are free to take what you want out of it or ignore it completely.

                    • wtl …
                      26 July 2011 at 2:58 pm

                      It is getting off topic, but my final word this. You may find that being more diplomatic when you make comments will help.

                      For example, your goals to reduce political smearing and increase people’s participation in the political process are good (even though I myself have taken cowardly snipes at your motivation in the past). However, it is obvious to me that saying “Labour does it too” in a post about a smear from the right is simply going to be seen as an attempt to derail by the commenters here. If you instead simply agreed with the point of the post, and waited for when an example of Labour smearing to come to light before denouncing their behaviour, I expect you might get a much better response.

                    • felix …
                      26 July 2011 at 8:30 pm

                      “As soon as I came here I was labeled a rightie and attacked on that basis.”

                      I think most would recognise that you’re generally ridiculed for being a prick rather than attacked for your beliefs.

                      If you do ever express a belief I probably will attack it, but that’ll be because I think you’re a prick so… same thing really.

                  • McFlock …
                    26 July 2011 at 5:54 pm

                    A few bad days on The Standard? Calling you a dick doesn’t cut it – I mean explicit comments that beneficiaries should be dead. Without *any* criticism from another comentator, or any indication that such comments are unnacceptable. 
                     
                     
                    An example of the sort of thing I mean was a comment on another tory tosser’s blog – the exact phrase stuck in my head (excuse the pun), so it’s easier to find than trawling the bile in KB.

                    The “article” (poorly constructed dribble) is about an activist who was on the dole so he could continue being an activist. Commenter A said:
                     
                     
                    “And I note he says that’s his “right”.
                    The only “right” this creep has is to a size 12 steel-capped boot up the backside.”
                     

                    Commenter B replied:
                    “9mm to the cranium”

                    I might call you a lying piece of shit, but you’d be hard pressed to find ANY comment on The Standard like that one, let alone one that a) made it past moderation; and/or b) wasn’t roundly called unacceptable by people from all parts of the spectrum.

            • Gosman 20.1.1.1.1.2
              26 July 2011 at 8:53 am

              How is being against radical Islam, (or even Islam itself), somehow equated with having violent tendancies and views?

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 July 2011 at 8:58 am

                It’s certainly not equated to mate, but it’s part of the mix.

                Read Breiviks manifesto and becomes quite clear how it is linked.

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 10:03 am

                  Yes I’m sure I can read some left wing terrorist’s manifesto and pick up similarities in their world view to many people on here. That does not mean sharing those views with someone who carries out abhorent behaviour means you are linked in any meaningful way with that behaviour.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    26 July 2011 at 11:24 am

                    Doesn’t mean you are linked, but some right wing groups and individuals will be.

                    Yes I’m sure I can read some left wing terrorist’s manifesto and pick up similarities in their world view to many people on here.

                    Difference beiong that an advocate for the extreme nationalistic Right Wing picked up a gun and started killing a lot of people in the middle of a modern western social democracy. Don’t think that’s going to happen on The Standard.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    26 July 2011 at 11:32 am

                    But it’s not just ‘similarities’. The guy cited and copied writers like Fjordman who are pretty influential. “Gates of Vienna’, ‘Jihadwatch’ and Pam Geller aren’t little nobodies no one has ever heard of.
                    \
                    Fjordman refused to publish the guys ‘book’, not because it was extreme, but because it was too much like evrything else that was already out there.

                    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,776413,00.html

          • mik e 20.1.1.1.2
            26 July 2011 at 7:37 pm

            The National and ACT parties have links to the far right through their links with exclusive brethren.In 2003 Bruce Hales went to a far right unity conference after that conference the Brethren were aloud to vote. Strengthened there ties with National and Don Brash John key Bill English before that it was Lockwood Smith who was the liaison officer who dealt with brethren. The brethren at this conference colluded too undo socialist govts around the world . These far right under ground religious para military groups illegally transfered $85million dollars to Bruce Hales in Australia for political purposes.

        • Gosman 20.1.1.2
          26 July 2011 at 7:56 am

          So let me get this straight – because I have a massive problem with a violent intolerant religious belief system I am somehow linked to an abhorent action by a lone man in a completely different country.

          That would be like me claiming that because many people here believe Socialism is their preferred system of Government they are linked to the genocidal tendancies of Stalin and Mao.

          • Blighty 20.1.1.2.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:31 am

            depends on how you express your ‘problem’ with that belief system, I guess.

            For starters, characterising Islam itself as violent isn’t a good start. People commit violence in the names of all belief systems.

            • Gosman 20.1.1.2.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 8:51 am

              Ummmm…. the founder of the Islamic faith i.e. Muhammed used violent means to propagate and solidify Islamic rule. Not only that but he backed up such actions with many Quranic verses that sanctify the use of violence in the name of Religion. I’d say that pretty much qualifies it as a violent religion.

              • Blighty …
                26 July 2011 at 8:54 am

                Yeah, whereas the spread of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc was all about the peace and love man.

                Given your views on Islam, would people, therefore, be justified in using violence to stop the spread of the religion and its believers, in your view?

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 9:51 am

                  Please tell me where in the Christain Bible does it state that followers of the religious faith should propagate the religion by violent means?

                  Now you may be right that followers have in the past done that but you will be hard placed to back that behaviour up with examples from the New Testament,

                  However what can’t be denied is that Muhammed was a cruel and violent man who did urge his followers to use violence to further his religious goals.

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 10:24 am

                      There is no doubt that the Bible, (Old and New testaments) contain a multitude of violent behavior R0b. However I asked where it is sanctioned to use violence to propagate the faith.

                      The Jewish God of the old Testament was a jealous, capricious, and violent deity. However he was less interested in spreading his religious ideals beyond the tiny minority of his ‘chosen’ people.

                      The God of the New Testament is far more new agey, (although not without a slight callous streak it is true), and more into love and peace. The obvious exception to this being the book of Revellations which was just some old guy’s acid trip.

                      What you don’t see in the New Testament is people urging followers of Jesus to go out and kill disbelievers where ever they find them until they all accept the proper religion. You do see this in the Quran, and in the Ahadiths and Sunnah multiple times.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2011 at 11:27 am

                      However I asked where it is sanctioned to use violence to propagate the faith.

                      Breivik believes a new crusade to remove the infidels from Europe is required, and a new generation of armed Knights.

                      Back to the old days – but with automatic weapons and explosives of course.

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 12:33 pm

                      The Crusades were sanctioned by the Pope for political reason. There is no evidence from the life of Jesus, (according to the views in the New Testament at least), that can be logically used to justify them. I could quote you dozens of Quranic verses justify killing of infidels in the name of the Allah though. All relayed, according to Islamic tradition, by Muhammed.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2011 at 1:27 pm

                      So, to summarise your position, Gos:

                      The Christian bible*  does not condone violence in any way,** and while Christian figures started the Crusades, they weren’t religious at all, only political.***

                        
                      Close enough?

                       

                      *well, the New Testament, anyway – all that zotzing of the Canaanites, witches and homosexuals was Jewish, before god was baptized and became a European Christian
                      **well, maybe Revelations, but that’s the book in the bible you think was included by god for comic relief
                      *** although they were sanctioned by the pope and religious scholars, and indeed were maintained by religious fervour, all of that is incidental and therefore able to be ignored.

                    • Richard …
                      26 July 2011 at 1:49 pm

                      Gosman, these are reported versions of the speech used to launch the first crusade.

                      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

                      Now while it is almost certain that there was a bit of geo-political wrangling going on; for example, Urban ii apparently explicitly mentions that western knights should not be killing each other and should instead go kill some heathern Arabs.

                      However the crusade is not preached in terms of politics. It’s clearly preached as a religious duty.

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 9:54 am

                  As for your rather pathetic attempt to try and link my views on Islam with the horrific incident in Norway, I will ask you if you think it is justified in using violence to stop the spread of Fascist idelology and its believers if they are not behaving in a violent manner themselves?

                  • mik e …
                    26 July 2011 at 11:25 am

                    Gosman It may not be in their but its amazing how people can read between the lines.Christianity was spread by a faltering Roman Empire as a method of colonialization brain washing and pacifying the masses and has been used since by just about every western empire for the same reason .They rewrote the bible on the island of Crete in the 7 th century . Hitler had his own version for his empire the South African apartheid govt had their own version for oppression.The main reason these days why islamism is against western influence is because one of Islamic faiths core beliefs is sharing wealth and that greed is evil.So it runs directly against the pure capitalist ideology.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      27 July 2011 at 2:22 am

                      Gosman It may not be in their (sic)  but its sic)  amazing how people can read between the lines.Christianity was spread by a faltering Roman Empire as a method of colonialization (sic)  brain washing and pacifying the masses and has been used since by just about every western empire for the same reason .They rewrote the bible on the island of Crete in the 7 th century . Hitler had his own version for his empire the South African apartheid govt had their own version for oppression.The main reason these days why islamism is against western influence is because one of Islamic faiths core beliefs is sharing wealth and that greed is evil.So it runs directly against the pure capitalist ideology.

                      Sorry, Mik e but that’s utter abusive 14K  paranoid shite you’re spouting there! I am sure you mean well, and possibly even believe that nonsense, but it belongs on some raving loony site, violence against Christians for the stirring up of! Where did you get these crazy ideas about the Bible being re-written in the 7th century, and Hitler having his own version? Your biggest and most inexcusable error (as you could easily have found a shedload of evidence to the contrary right here in NZ) is your decision that Christianity equals capitalism. It never did historically, and only in the USA and that recently, has it ever done so!
                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    26 July 2011 at 11:27 am

                    Gos, what if someone who thinks Islam is inherently violent and that immigration is slowly but surely altering their nations demographics and that once a tipping point is reached it will be too late to stop islamists showing their true face and forcing Sharia law on everyone? What if they think that cultural marxists are, at best, unwitting fools placing their nation in mortal peril?

                    Do you think that people who write thousands of words based on those ideas are in any way responsible for people who act on those beliefs?

                  • Blighty …
                    26 July 2011 at 11:39 am

                    So, you think that believing in Islam is as morally reprehensible as I view being a fascist.

                    Wow.

                    In fact, more so. Because you don’t condemn violence that you see as being about turning back the muslim hordes, whereas I certainly don’t support violence against fascists just because they’re fascists.

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 12:24 pm

                      Ummmm… that is exactly what I stated. Just as you have claimed that you wouldn’t advocate violence against fascists if they are non-violent then I too don’t advocate violence against anyone who believe in Islam.

                      I have an additional question for you though. What would you do if fascist bully boy groups started attacking people attending trade union meetings and other left leaning gatherings?

                    • mik e …
                      27 July 2011 at 2:26 pm

                      VICKY32 .The original bible was uncovered in 1933 reported in national geographic it is believed to be written by Jesuses wife as Jesus was a carpenter knew how build but not write, their are ancient sects of Christianity still spread through northern Egypt where this bible was found that predates all others found as well as parts of Iraq and Iran, in this Bible there is no reference to Jesus being able to do super human feats .So it fits into his ideal of not wanting to be a martyr and theres no reference to Mary being a prostitute,those were written in to the bible on Crete around 670ad by an empire which wanted to subjugate women and make a martyr out of Jesus.Then you have the dead sea scrolls which were hidden away by the catholic church for 1400years moved to the us in 1933 after the rise of Hitler.in 1978 time magazine used new congressional laws to stop the church hiding what was written on these scrolls and basically the same story it never refereed to any super human powers to Jesus in fact it pointed out that Jesus was a radical stone thrower protester who stood up for the under privileged rights. YEAH right

              • mik e …
                26 July 2011 at 11:07 am

                Gosman Islamism is about peace like 90% of most religon its was,nt till the Teutonic knights mass murdered in their crusades{Just kill them all st Peter will sort them out at the pearly gates] that the Muslims took up arms against their terrorizers. Breivic claims to be a new order of these Knights.Gosman your lack knowledge in both economics and general history and this sort of ignorance is what breeds opinions about religious intolerance.You go down the street on a Friday night in most Muslim countries you won,t see the drunken buffoonery you see in just about every main st in NZ. you will feel far safer !So we are no better with our far right Christian fundamentalists.

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 12:25 pm

                  I’m going to ask you one question Mik e – Have you heard of the Battle of Tours/Poitiers?

                  • McFlock …
                    26 July 2011 at 1:31 pm

                    oh, but that was just “for political reason” – not religious. Or is everything Islamic leaders do religious, but if the Pope does it it’s political?

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 4:06 pm

                      The Papacy is a political construct. There is little to no justification for the role in the New Testatment. However Muhammed is at the heart of the Islamic faith. Try arguing with Muslims that Muhammed doesn’t matter and see where it gets you.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 July 2011 at 4:11 pm

                      Gosman, the ‘New Testament’ is not a faith, it is a book. Islam on the other hand is a faith.

                      The correct analogy would be for you to ask a Catholic if the Pope and the Papalcy lay at the heart of Catholicism.

                      What do you think the answer would be if you said Catholics should try to do without the Pope and without the Vatican?

                      Dumbaassss

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 6:58 pm

                      Ummmmm…. you miss my point.

                      The role of the Pope isn’t mentioned in the New Testament so you can quite easily be a Christian without agreeing that you need a Pope. Muslims aren’t able to do the same with Muhammed. It is part of the fundamental profession of that faith. You have heard of the words you need state to acknowledge you are a Muslim, There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his Prophet.

                      As for Catholics opinions on the Pope, I was raised a Catholic. I think you will find many, many Catholics who don’t place too much on his various pronoucements.

                    • felix …
                      26 July 2011 at 7:39 pm

                      Hi Gosman.

                      Why are you trying to draw a parallel between Muhammed and the Pope?

                      The Pope is a, a position, a posting, a high office, the top job in the hierarchy of a particular sect of Christianity. Muhammed isn’t a job. They don’t select a new Muhammed to fill the role when the old one dies.

                      Muhammed is a historical figure, supposedly a prophet.

                      You’d be on better ground comparing Muhammed to Jesus, and the Pope to the Ayatollah or some other head cleric of some particular sect.

                      Not interested in whatever argument you’re using the analogy in btw, just giving you some alternative analogies that actually make sense.

                      Good day.

                    • Gosman …
                      26 July 2011 at 8:13 pm

                      Thank you felix but it wasn’t I who brought the Pope into this discussion but Mcflock. I am merely responding to his or her view that for some reason the Pope advocating dumbass ideas is equivalent to Muhammed doing the same thing. I actually completely agree with you. The much better analogy is with Jesus. There aren’t too many passages where Jesus advocates killing unbelievers.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2011 at 8:24 pm

                      Oh, btw – ISTR Catholic theology disagrees with your interpretation. Something along the lines of “on this rock I shall build my church”.

                      Edit: And you brought up the pope here, saying that it didn’t count as religious because it was a political motive. You can’t have it one way for the Christians but another way for Islam.

                • Gosman …
                  26 July 2011 at 12:29 pm

                  By the way I think you might be mixing up your Crusades with that anecdote about St Peter sorting them out at the Pearly gates. I think you will find that was from the Albigensian crusade in Southern France. That was between two different sects of Christianity. Nice effort at half remembering something vaguely useful though.

                  • mik e …
                    26 July 2011 at 3:48 pm

                    Sorry Gosman the Middle east has been a foment of religious fundamentalism for thousands of years.It doesn,t mean that modern Muslims are by nature violent 99.9% + aren,t just like 99.9% of Mormons aren,t polygamous.Just like Christians are supposed to be peace loving and turn the other cheek.Religion to me is just quasi politics .Or like football supporters my team is better than yours and never the twin shall meet.Humans are just a competitive animal who have controlled their environment .But we are still at each others throats over every thing and any thing.thats why we are lead so easily by our basic instincts, like greed rather than sharing.

      • Vicky32 20.1.2
        27 July 2011 at 1:54 am

        I’d bet that 99%+ of New Zealanders have been shocked and horrified by what happened in Norway. Using that tragedy for political opportunism and trying to promote extreme political division is abhorrent.

        Really? I have been wondering.. I am on Facebook, and the only comments/reactions I’ve seen about it come from my Italian, Norwegian and British friends (and one New Zealander who’s half Norwegian). The New Zealanders (but for the specifically Labour and Green people) have ignored the whole thing.
        I have had the same thought for the past 2 days, as I watched three TV dramas all of which dealt with eerily similar events… had the Norway attacks happened in the USA, the networks would have said “too soon” and rescheduled these dramas. (As TV2 did with an episode of Fringe originally scheduled for last September that dealt with an earthquake – they played it in April!)
        But because it happened in Norway and 99% of the USA, 45% of New Zealanders would say “where’s that?”, there’s no such thing as “too soon”. 🙁

         

         

  21. Descendant Of Smith 21
    26 July 2011 at 7:20 am

    Maybe there is some cognitive dissonance going on for some people here.
    Maybe they are still in the first few stages of the change process – shock then denial.

    This is so clearly an act of political violence against the left – deliberate, planned and targeted.

    This is also clearly carried out by someone of right-wing persuasion who has also links with other right-wing groups.

    ARV pays attention because he has some Norwegian friends – I pay attention because it is both a planned act of violence and because it is against politically motivated against the left.

    You’ll find many posts across this site condemning the way that the right talk about people – the labeling of beneficiaries as bludgers or slags, the notion that the poor are there because of their own fault and all they do is have to pull themselves up and get their shit together, the inherent racism in many of the views expressed by the right.

    I’m not sure why you would have activist in your name if you don’t understand the impact of such rhetoric, the power imbalances it represents and the subsequent breeding ground this creates for acts of this type of action.

    No-one here has advocated any sort of violence to the right but rightly condemn the not that extreme, selfish right environment that leads to such acts.

  22. Bart 22
    26 July 2011 at 8:12 am

    @ Jenny

    Conviently forgetting the bomber who blew himself up in an attack on the Whanganui Computer aren’t we?

  23. Mike Mckee 23
    26 July 2011 at 10:51 am

    It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who hasn’t read the Koran, Sira and one of the 5 central Hadiths (cover to cover) about Islam, Sharia Law, Kafirs and Dhimmitude in all it’s glory and especially socially, constitutionally, politically, judicially and day to day legally for kafirs or non believers including those born in the sharia territory. So don’t waste your breath.

    Anders Breivik certainly (like the 911 bombers) believed passionately in what he was doing.
    That he felt bereft of hope and so felt forced to take the action he did, can be laid at the feet of the social left and their interpretation of multiculturalism and how they have forced it on society through the political process, media and academic and teaching professions.

    Now of course they will use this to force more freedoms away from the people.
    Of course we don’t have that problem here as the left have our best interests at heart don’t they?
    They would never take away our rights to freedom and free speach least of all in an election year would they?
    After all the left/socialists stand for freedom and liberty, that is the reason for being to them. Not.

  24. vto 24
    26 July 2011 at 11:19 am

    Any similarities between the separatist politics of this madman Norwegian and the madman separatist politics of Hone Harawira you think?

    Any similarities between the violent tactics too? Titewhai and followers threats at that hui up north?

    • mik e 24.1
      26 July 2011 at 11:32 am

      Hone has got guts he is using our democratic process to get his point of view across not guns. not every body likes him but not many people like Don and Hillaries either. But i,m glad we can have these point of views out in the open to be lambasted rather than with guns

      • vto 24.1.1
        26 July 2011 at 11:48 am

        True that Hone and his disciples are using the system and being open about it and that’s ok. But the politics are similar. And guns and hone? I recall him intimating that they in the north have guns and would use them if needed, some time ago.

        Similarly, in the Ureweras.

        What woiuld the reaction be were it a white, or non-maori, organisation carrying on and occasionally talking about guns and sometimes even using them to shoot up some Maori flag?

        I suspect the reactions would be very different. It is a bit like saying somethiing, anything, critical of Israel and you become anti-semitic and saying something, anything, critical of Maori and you become racist. The reactions by many in this country to actions of others are highly dependent on a number of selective and subjective criteria, like the race or religion of the person involved. It is called hypocrisy and it destroys credibility. Like David Garrett and the ACT foolish children.

        The simiilarities are very real.

        • Adele 24.1.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 7:52 pm

          Teenaa koe, vto

          What woiuld the reaction be were it a white, or non-maori, organisation carrying on and occasionally talking about guns and sometimes even using them to shoot up some Maori flag?

          I suspect the reactions would be very different. It is a bit like saying somethiing, anything, critical of Israel and you become anti-semitic and saying something, anything, critical of Maori and you become racist. The reactions by many in this country to actions of others are highly dependent on a number of selective and subjective criteria, like the race or religion of the person involved. It is called hypocrisy and it destroys credibility. Like David Garrett and the ACT foolish children.

          The simiilarities are very real.

          Unlike the western tradition the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa have learnt the lessons of the past. Violence begats violence and reverberates through whakapapa as grief, tragedy and utu. The violence being perpetrated on tāngata whenua by the western tradition is the dis-ease within this society.

          If your criticism of things Māori are based on a typical Pākehā perspective than yes you are racist as the average Pākeha hasn’t got a clue about the traditions informing Te Ao Māori. Ignorance is great fuel for racism.

          There is a survivalist movement in this country that is not Māori – it is white, it is armed, and it is training itself for Armageddon. But you wouldn’t know this as you would rather watch Police 10.7 to glean more facts about them ‘Maaries.’

          • Bored 24.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

            Adele,

            You say, “Violence begats violence and reverberates through whakapapa as grief, tragedy and utu. The violence being perpetrated on tāngata whenua by the western tradition is the dis-ease within this society”.

            Maybe, I would broaden it and say that the violence in the western tradition is a human condition that no society has yet fully come to terms with. No society has a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce entrenched interests. Force is what makes this possible in the first instance. In the west we use money and private property rights to get our way, as opposed to a mere. It is insidious and effective.

            • Adele 24.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 8:29 pm

              Maybe, I would broaden it and say that the violence in the western tradition is a human condition that no society has yet fully come to terms with. No society has a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce entrenched interests

              I would have to say ‘yes’ to you. Paradoxically, perhaps, violence to advance the human condition is more likely to hasten our extinction as a species on Earth.

          • vto 24.1.1.1.2
            26 July 2011 at 8:43 pm

            If you were any more full of assumptions you would capsize

            • Adele 24.1.1.1.2.1
              27 July 2011 at 3:25 am

              I invite you to dispel some of my assumptions. Firstly, tell me what you know about Te Ao Māori.

              My waka is well made, upright and following the stars. Yours, on the other hand, appears to be a leaky boat encrusted with barnacles of the genus ‘mofo zealandicka.’

              • vto …
                27 July 2011 at 6:59 am

                “Unlike the western tradition the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa have learnt the lessons of the past. ” assumption one.

                “The violence being perpetrated on tāngata whenua by the western tradition is the dis-ease within this society.” assumption two.

                “If your criticism of things Māori” assumption three

                ” But you wouldn’t know this as you would rather watch Police 10.7 to glean more facts about them ‘Maaries.’ ” assumption four.

                “Yours, on the other hand, appears to be a leaky boat encrusted with barnacles of the genus ‘mofo zealandicka.’ ” assumptions five and six

                Plus with your last assumption you confirm a seemingly inherent violence in some quarters of ‘Maarie’ society. Fuck you too. Well done adele in getting the abuse started.

                • Adele …
                  29 July 2011 at 5:44 pm

                  Teenaa koe, vto

                  A response to this and later comments.

                  Firstly, I am female.

                  Secondly, any understanding of depth to this country’s herstory would reinforce my point of view rather than yours. Your criticism of things Māori is based on unadulterated ignorance – you have no understanding of Te Ao Māori, past events and their context, the present tense, or the facts (too inconvenient perhaps).

                  You have the impression that all violence is perpetrated by Māori yet the statistics would say otherwise. Your ignorance is fed by a media that is largely like you – white and biased. Child abuse is not solely a Māori problem but is reported as such.

                  Also, to be goaded so easily into a ‘fuck you’ says to me – thinks with his penis.

                  • Morgan …
                    29 July 2011 at 6:53 pm

                    “Also, to be goaded so easily into a ‘fuck you’ says to me – thinks with his penis.”

                    If I said the equivalent about you being female and therefore being a raging hormonal bitch, that would make me sexist and reviled for being chauvinistic. It irritates me that you can say such a thing without response.

                    Whether or not you were a raging hormonal bitch is another question, one I prefer not to guess on, as is the case with the origins of vto’s thought processes.

                    Say you were correct – saying it wouldn’t make you right.

                    Just putting it out there, I agree with the gist of what you say about him.

                    • Adele …
                      29 July 2011 at 7:08 pm

                      Teenaa koe, Morgan

                      If vto was a female I would have said, ‘thinks with her clit.’ “Fuck you” is not a rejoinder worthy of a brain.

                  • vto …
                    30 July 2011 at 11:38 am

                    Adele, you really are a dick. And you come across as your classic arrogant racist Maori.

                    I did not criticise Maori, contrary to your continued assumption. I did not even refer to much at all Maori. Yet you have thrown all sorts of accusations at me and assumed that I am this and that and this and that. You even assumed I am non-maori. You can’t even recognise your own people, fool. You prejudge. Basically, you went right off on a tangent and launched broadsides at me. Why? What part of my posts got up your nose? You should get of your high maori horse. Perhaps you could try answering the question…

                    And saying ‘fuck you’ was in reponse to your ‘mofo zealandicka’. What planet are you on? I don’t think you have a clit or a penis given the pathetic posts you keep making. You are a drone.

                    Come back when you have a point to make rather than hollow assumptions and abuse.

                    This entire thread I have been raising a question and providing some evidence in support. (below). Not a single person has come back with a single answer. The sole response type has been just like yours…”oh you’re just a whitey. Oh youre just a redneck. Oh you’re just an ignorant cock who watches police 10-7. Oh you’re just a red-head. Oh you’re a maarie ”

                    Tell me Adele, do you have a point of view about the question I raised? (below too). Do you? See if you can reply with no personal aspect injected. Go on. Challenge yourself. I don’t think you’re up to it though – you are too busy puffing yourself up on your own world view. Pathetic.

                    • Adele …
                      30 July 2011 at 7:40 pm

                      Vto, well if someone has to wear the dick it might as well be a woman, at least then it will be put to proper use instead of being a mouthpiece for ignorance.

                      The words ‘separatism’ and ‘apartheid’ are frequent stabs made at Māori. I can just imagine that thinking organ of yours scribbling the following:

                      “Maori separatists are increasingly the main enemies of the New Zealand democratic state. They seek, in time, to overthrow it and establish an iwi supremacist system, where iwi control the country, and it is no longer a democracy.

                      For instance the argument that the Treaty of Waitangi is a “partnership” between the Government and tribes gives them superior powers and rights to other New Zealanders. The model of South African Apartheid comes to mind. But given utu (revenge) and mana (power, authority, control) are such central features of Maori society, as emphasised in the intertribal musket wars prior to 1840, it is likely to be even more polarising.

                      A number of Maori land occupations are now taking place for questionable reasons. At Taipa in the Far North, the Labour Weekend boat regatta was stopped because of a Maori occupation. At Papaaroha near Coromandel, use of a boat ramp has been blocked. And a road is being blocked into the western area of Urewera National Park.”

                      http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/10/hugh-barr-national-is-appeasing-maori.html

                      Like your continuing diatribe much of the above is fuelled by racism. Self-loathing if you’re Māori.

                      Separatism is the antithesis of assimilation and that is why Te Ao Pākehā hates it so much in the context of Māori-Pākehā relationships.

                      The facade of ‘we’re all New Zealanders’ is assimilation dressed in woolly clothes. The New Zealander of Pākehā idealisation is invariably white with blonde tints. Tāngata whenua are eviscerated from this peoplescape – we are tanned rather than brown.

                      But, this whole argument is not really about race as there are Māori that think like Pākehā and Pākehā that think as Māori.

                      The western tradition is a hungry man with a voracious appetite for control. He is avaristic and profane – innate qualities that enable him to rationalise his violence towards the natural world and towards other worldviews. His narcissistic personality disorder also enshrines his obsessive self-interest.

                      Hone and Māori politics in general are not right or left of the Pākehā divide although you may perceive them as such. Hone and Māori protests in general are not violent actions, although the media may portray them as such. Again, I urge you to get a real education as ignorance is not bliss.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      31 July 2011 at 2:55 pm

                      “Adele, you really are a dick. And you come across as your classic arrogant racist Maori…”?

                      Vto, what is a “classic arrogant racist Maori”?

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    31 July 2011 at 2:53 pm

                    “…You have the impression that all violence is perpetrated by Māori yet the statistics would say otherwise. Your ignorance is fed by a media that is largely like you – white and biased. Child abuse is not solely a Māori problem but is reported as such. …”

                    Indeed, Adele.

                    If TV and print media reported only crimes committed by left-handed, jewish, gay, chinese – then the public would rapidly develop a pereception that ALL crimes were committed by… left-handed, jewish, gay, chinese.

                    I recall one evening, at 10pm, listening to a radio news broadcast. Off the four stories reported by the news-reader, three were crime and one was sports-related. Anyone listening to that news broadcast would have come away with the impression that nothing happenred in NZ except crime, and a sporting event.

                    Yet, common sense tells us that is not the case.

          • higherstandard 24.1.1.1.3
            26 July 2011 at 8:57 pm

            “Unlike the western tradition the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa have learnt the lessons of the past. Violence begats violence and reverberates through whakapapa as grief, tragedy and utu. The violence being perpetrated on tāngata whenua by the western tradition is the dis-ease within this society.”

            No Adele some of the indigenous people of NZ have not learnt the lessons of the past this is demonstrated by the continuing appalling health and abuse statistics.

            • Adele 24.1.1.1.3.1
              27 July 2011 at 3:52 am

              Teenaa koe, higherstandard

              That the indigenous peoples of this country are disproportionately represented in all adverse indicators across health, justice, education, employment, and are generally at the bottom of the heap economically speaks to the process of colonisation and the disregard Te Ao Pākehā have accorded Te Tiriti.

              We are not brown pākehā waiting for the opportunity to be fully white. Our worldview is so vastly different from the western tradition. While many have capitulated and upgraded blankets and beads for cellphones and TVs, many more continue to challenge a belief system that resembles BORG ideology – annihilation through assimilation. Pūkana to that.

              • higherstandard …
                27 July 2011 at 8:47 am

                Hi Adele

                I disagree many of these statistics cannot be laid at the feet of colonisation which as you may recall occurred well over a century ago.

                Let’s take the child abuse statistics for a start, the vast amount of Maori do not abuse their children and treasure them as is correct, however the abuse statistics are still substantively higher than for non-Maori – this blame for this cannot be sheeted home to non-maori.

                Similarly the CV morbidity and mortality rates are far higher for maori than non maori despite the efforts of health professionals and social marketing, while some of this is a genetic predisposition to Type II diabetes, there is also many interventions Maori could make in relation to smoking in particular.

                I don’t believe anyone is asking Maori to give up being Maori but I for one am asking some maori to stop blaming everyone else for life’s problems and to look for solutions within your own whanau.

                • mik e …
                  27 July 2011 at 1:50 pm

                  Lowering the Standard Poverty statistics from around the world show only 5% of people manage to work their way out of poverty.European brought the cigarettes and alcohol which pervade impoverished communities ie South Auckland . The big multinational companies responsible for the damage they do are being subsidized by the tax payer to the tune of between $7&$10 billion for destruction they cause with their addictive drugs, any other drugs that did this much damage they would locked up and the key thrown away especially by the rednecks quietly sipping away.Hone and the Maori party should be given a Knight hood for their efforts for Standing up to these Murderous multinationals

                  • higherstandard …
                    27 July 2011 at 3:00 pm

                    mik e – to state the bleeding obvious no-one is forcing maori or any other sector of the population to smoke or dink themselves to death, we continue as a society to spend huge amounts of money in treating and trying to prevent people from using tobacco and alcohol but we still have wards and A&E departments full of morons who don’t get the message.

                    Continued blaming of the immigrants to NZ for all of Maoridom’s problems is doing little to solve them.

                • mik e …
                  28 July 2011 at 12:16 am

                  lowering the standard evermore.So why do we bother outlawing what are seen as more dangerous drugs then . Addictive drugs are addictive drugs people who sell them ESPECIALLY the ones that kill people are criminals.If someone opened p lab next to you only 10 deaths a year directly attributable to p, you would call the cops .How ever if a shop opened up next to you selling tobacco which there are 5,000 deaths a year attributable total loss of $2.7billion +. Alcohol 500 deaths directly attributable + $5.5billion+ loss to the economy. thats completely alright.That the rest of us subsidize alcoholism and tobacco smokers thats obviously cool with you . NO wonder we have the highest child poverty / abuse in the OECD.Just because Maori have higher rates doesn,t make the rest of us any better.If you look at poverty there is a direct link you find long term unemployment behind these statistics ! Ive read report after report gong back to the Ropa report in 1987. going back to prior to 1976 where we had some of the lowest child poverty abuse and deaths in the OECD countries.As well as lowest murder rates then as well!

                  • higherstandard …
                    28 July 2011 at 8:11 am

                    mik e I don’t know where you get the idea I support tobacco or alcohol, you appear to be a very confused and angry person.

                    As I said previously I am asking some maori to stop blaming everyone else for life’s problems and to look for solutions within their own whanau, you appear to have gone off on some tangent.

            • mik e 24.1.1.1.3.2
              27 July 2011 at 1:36 pm

              This blog site seems to be taken over by the right wing by sheer no,s .Maori are suffering the effects of poverty having their status diminished from being the landlord to being the peasants the very reason most settlers came from in Europe to escape now they are at the bottom of the pile the right rednecks want to keep them their blame them then kick them when their down go back to you r blogs where those sentiments are appreciated

        • marty mars 24.1.1.2
          26 July 2011 at 8:25 pm

          The politics aren’t similar – that is in your imagination. Not so nice to see you are using this to score some points. Oh well whatever – nevermind.

          • vto 24.1.1.2.1
            26 July 2011 at 8:42 pm

            That’s a very useless response mr marty.

            • marty mars 24.1.1.2.1.1
              26 July 2011 at 8:47 pm

              I tried to keep it up to the standard of your original provoking comment.

              • vto …
                26 July 2011 at 8:49 pm

                Which was a question. You assumed an answer. Look out you don’t capsize.

                • marty mars …
                  26 July 2011 at 9:19 pm

                  Your question was leading showing what you think, or does “But the politics are similar.” from your second comment not mean what I thought it means? Stand up for what you believe – don’t be shy. I support Hone and Mana and i am saying to you that their politics are the opposite of this murderer’s in Norway and i reiterate that trying to connect them is not nice.

                  • vto …
                    27 July 2011 at 7:05 am

                    okay okay. I guess my point is … lets check for characteristics of home grown terrorism in relation to Hone and similar ilk.

                    1. Politics at an extreme end of the spectrum. Check.

                    2. Politics advocating a form of separatism and showing some hatred. Check.

                    3. A discourse that is heavy and extreme. Check.

                    4. A past involving use of weapons or their threatened use. Check.

                    That’s all the boxes checked. It will be difficult for some to take and no doubt, as adele does above, some will simply attack me instead of the thought process…

                    • marty mars …
                      27 July 2011 at 8:02 am

                      difficult to take? – LOL you’re doing a brash and your analysis is pathetic, like his – check.

                      I mean really – ‘heavy discourse’ – ‘some hatred’ – keep it going vto I can see the case building in front of my eyes as you dig a bigger hole for youself and your mates.

                    • vto …
                      28 July 2011 at 8:02 am

                      ha ha yourself. Blinkers on, full steam ahead. Which was part of my original point.

                      Why are some questions not able to be asked on this site?

                    • vto …
                      28 July 2011 at 8:11 am

                      tip toe tip toe to the maori world.

                      stomp clomp stomp clomp to the white world.

                      the inconsistency is incredible.

                    • marty mars …
                      30 July 2011 at 11:13 pm

                      You know vto now that you have told us you are māori it makes me sadder to read your views.

                      1. I don’t consider the politics of mana as extreme – it is about equality and the party is in the House using the system to effect change that is the opposite of extreme. Sure it is a spectrum maybe even a spiral and Mana do sit at the left end but they cannot be considered extreme as you are using it IMO.

                      2. There is no hatred only a desire for the basic human right of equality and self determination – when this country achieves that we will all be better off – it is an addition not a subtraction. There is frustration sometimes and anger but it is pretty mellow really IMO.

                      3. To you maybe but I would say you are just getting the slimmest taste from the MSM and dubious sites which are afraid of Mana because it is a party that will effect positive change for all people. The proof will come at the ballot box and the people will decide.

                      4. A very long bow that seems a bit desperate – how long has Mana been going?

                      I have no problem if you hate Hone and Mana and everything they stand for but it will be news to John Minto and Annette Sykes that they are supporters of a ‘right wing party’. It doesn’t stack up because it isn’t true – you are wrong.

                      I don’t know what connection you have with your people I hope it’s good and strengthening – I lived in christchurch a couple of years ago and it gave me a good opportunity to go to my marae and learn some things – I’m not trying to tell you what to do only what has helped me.

                  • vto …
                    27 July 2011 at 7:08 am

                    The disaffected in Europe currently under seige from a colonisation wave should enter into a treaty of waitangi with the current colonisers.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      28 July 2011 at 10:13 am

                      “Why are some questions not able to be asked on this site?”

                      You have asked the questions.

                      We have provided answers, and ridiculed your “check list”.

                      You are drawing a rather long-bow in trying to link Hone with the kind of violent extremism shown by that Norwegian nutcase. Almost as if you are trying to paint Harawira with the same brush to justify your own views.

                      Fail.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      28 July 2011 at 10:13 am

                      .The disaffected in Europe currently under seige from a colonisation wave should enter into a treaty of waitangi with the current colonisers

                      Your xenophobia is showing…

                    • vto …
                      28 July 2011 at 3:38 pm

                      Ffs Macasky, all responses to the various points I have made here have been solely either attacks on me, or simple bare statements “you are wrong” in various forms. Not one person above has actually provided any facts or statements or evidence to refute. Not one.

                      Which was exactly my point that, in New Zealand, responses (yours and martys and adeles) to people (me) asking questions or going about some activity are determined by the responders assumptions about the peson so questioning or activitating, and those assumptions usually are along the lines “oh you are just a red neck / white male / Brash wannabe / christian or religious.

                      Please do point out which of you in responses above actually answered the issue.

                      Take that foolish adele for instance. I made a point about the reaction to any criticism about Maori and he thought I had actually criticised Maori. Re-read it fools. There was no such criticism.

                      And to the other point I was making, to repeat … lets check for characteristics of terrorism with regard to Hone and his politics and similar followers within NZ;

                      1. Politics at the extreme end of the spectrum. (it is accepted that Mana’s sovereignty and other politics are right at one end of the spectrum. No?)

                      2. Politics advocating a form of separatism. (this is what Mana want, a form of separatism. This was one of the characteristic of the Norway terror. No?)

                      3. A discourse that is heavy. (read what the Norwegian murderer wrote and it is heavy. Similarly, two examples, so is ‘white mofos’ from an elected representative. And you may recall the call to maori convicts some years ago to ‘kill a whitey’. Heavy. No?)

                      4. A past that involves use or threatened use of weapons. (Hone some years ago referred to them in the north having guns and being prepared to use them. Similarly, recall Tame Iti shooting up a NZ flag recently? And we still have the Urewera ‘terrorists’. Weapons. No?)

                      Play the issue and not the manwoman. It is your responses which have been hollow and empty. Man up and take off the blinkers. I am happy to be shown why points may be wrong. So go to it.

                      And to get something clear for all you assumptive fools out there – my ancestry goes back as far as any other person in these lands. So stick that in ya pipetto and smoke it. Sometimes it seems it is only the manners that separate this site from KB.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      28 July 2011 at 7:30 pm

                      VTO,

                      “Ffs Macasky, all responses to the various points I have made here have been solely either attacks on me, or simple bare statements “you are wrong” in various forms. Not one person above has actually provided any facts or statements or evidence to refute. Not one.”

                      First point. My surname is “Macskasy”. Not that jumble you wrote in your 3.38pm post. C&P is your friend.

                      Second point. Perhaps no one has “actually provided any facts or statements or evidence to refute” any of your comments because they are one-line, throw-away remarks. They are “verbal grenades”, aimed simply to generate a stir, and much much else.

                      If you actually had a point to make, it should be somewhat more involved instead of one or two lines, such as;

                      “The disaffected in Europe currently under seige from a colonisation wave should enter into a treaty of waitangi with the current colonisers.”

                      If you give us a one liner – expect a one-liner in response.

                      If you want to be taken seriously, put some serious thought into your posts.

                      You may think you’re being clever, but believe me, there have been a long line of similarly “clever” folk (sometimes referred to as “trolls”) who have come; gone; and been forgotten.

                    • vto …
                      28 July 2011 at 9:05 pm

                      Macskasy, you completely ignored the entire second part of my reply to you, which was a repeat of an earlier post, and entirely in answer to your silly point before you even made it. Did you not see points 1. to 4.? No?

                      That is 1. to 4.

                      It is just above. Take another read.

                      It is you who have thrown the stupid grenades.

                      I have made a point and backed it up with some evidence in support. I have even invited people to shoot the points down. Nobody has.

                      Extreme politics. Heavy discourse. Weapons. But just keep ignoring it. ignore ignore ignore.

                      ignore

                      ignore ignore

                      snore

                    • vto …
                      30 July 2011 at 11:46 am

                      So the conclusion left is thus …

                      Maori separatist politics and its followers constitute a group in this country which is more likely than others to spawn a home-grown terrorist.

                      Hone and his separatist politics are heavily right wing, jammed hard up against their heavily left wing policies. And they are, following this posts headline “The violent right”, violent. Which, by way of one example, was borne out at the hui with the Maori Party where Hone;s mummy and supporters threatened people.

                      But nobody will engage on this. Bloody scaredy cats. I await the hollow statements avoiding the issue and the personal assumptions and attacks. Again. (if you would like clues on how to go about this please have a look at Adele’s responses above)

  25. Bill 25
    26 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

    There’s a lot of ‘missing ther point’ going on here. I’m not sure I can quite ‘pin it’. But here goes.

    The anti-Islam, anti-feminism etc of Anders Behring Breivik and a whole host of others (whether it be the Tea Party or Wishart or whoever) is merely the rationale that sits above their core belief.

    The bad news for liberals and liberalism is that I hear the core belief repeated time and again in casual conversation. Whereas pertinant points might be entirely missed by such people, the sentiments that inform their politics are widespread and shared by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

    eg. It’s not an exclusively right wing phenomena to view the UN in less than desirable terms. But it is a right wing phenomena to overlook the likely consequence of the demise of the UN in a world where the US and others would rather rely on the armed force of NATO instead.

    And it is only the right wing who view the UN in broad conspiratorial terms. (Unaccountable global governance.)

    And it’s not a right wing phenomena to detest an over-bearing bureacracy that would have you hold a certificate before you can scratch your arse. But it is a right wing phenomena to ignore the likely consequence of the market and business being given a free hand to do as they wish.

    And it is only the right wing who view bureacratic legislation in broad conspiratorial terms. (Slow creep of authoritarianism)

    A liberatarian left perspective might see ‘mainstream’ liberalism acting as the gatekeeper to global capitalism and that role being an inevitable result of holding that capitalism can be made to be okay as long as it is subject to enough reform.

    But the right wing see ‘mainstream’ liberalism as the main protaganists in the current global situation and they seemingly can’t see that liberalism (undesirable as it might be) buffers us from the worse excesses of naked capitalism.

    Meanwhile, so called liberal political players (various ‘socialist’ led governments) have done themselves no favours over recent decades by seeking compromise with right wing financial agendas…dumping their core values not to mention their support base in the process.

    Now many are bowing to the will of very illiberal global centers of financial power…the market…and are hammering the economic prospects of their citizenry to save the banks. Failing economic prospects isn’t just a fertile breeding ground for racism but easily feeds into sentiments that that can fester and become articulated as ‘the liberals are out to get us’.

    So, I don’t know, is liberalism caught between a rock and a hard place? And are illiberal market forces about to get a free ‘home run’, unwittingly aided and abetted by some numbers of people it has no regard for?

    • Sam 25.1
      26 July 2011 at 3:27 pm

      That was the most incoherent piece of mumbo jumbo I’ve read so far on this site.

    • Colonial Viper 25.2
      26 July 2011 at 9:00 pm

      Pretty much everything in your thesis hits the spot.

      There is a disconnect here in NZ for instance – appalling child poverty, youth unemployment, and spiralling down real wages…but the Left/Liberals hardly gain any traction.

      Labour was in power for 9 years – how is it that 9 years feels like it has been unpicked so fast?

      In that time did Labour do nothing to teach the people about the values of a social democracy?

      It seems not. Transactional thinking has bred a transactional electorate.

      • Sam 25.2.1
        26 July 2011 at 11:40 pm

        Shortest “thesis” I’ve ever seen, Colonial Viper.

        • McFlock 25.2.1.1
          26 July 2011 at 11:51 pm

          “Oooo, I dun bin at univercity, I noes a “thesis” is like a book and shit”.
          For the cheap seats: dictionary.com

          “a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.”

           

           
           
           
           
          Hegelian dialectics would confuse the hell out of you, Sam.

          • Sam 25.2.1.1.1
            27 July 2011 at 9:20 am

            Nobody gives a fuck about Hegelian dialectics, you can’t make money out of that shit. He might have though, sucking in people like you.

            • Bill 25.2.1.1.1.1
              27 July 2011 at 9:47 am

              To make it easier on you Sam.

              Read this comment from Mike Mckee http://thestandard.org.nz/the-violent-right/#comment-356422 and then, as slowly as you need to, read the comment I made and see if you can join some dots.

            • McFlock 25.2.1.1.1.2
              27 July 2011 at 1:34 pm

              lol Sam – so obviously the way HD use the words “thesis”, “antithesis” and “synthesis” make you a touch defensive. 

              Did you only buy the Reader’s Digest Condensed Dictionary (guaranteed no more than one definition per word)? Or was the Dr Seuss rhyming dictionary more at your level?

            • Frank Macskasy 25.2.1.1.1.3
              28 July 2011 at 10:40 am

              Ohhh, you used the “F” word. Does that mean we should take you seriously?!

              Seriously, Sam, you’re good for a laugh… but the grown-ups aren’t taking you seriously. http://tinyurl.com/3rubf96

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 July 2011 at 11:36 pm

                As a friend of mine says – education is for people. Training is for horses.

                Honestly, I can’t tell which one Sam has undergone.

      • Frank Macskasy 25.2.2
        28 July 2011 at 10:37 am

        Labour was in power for 9 years – how is it that 9 years feels like it has been unpicked so fast?

        I’ve noticed the same thing, Viper.

        Part of that question can be due to simple slioppiness on Labour and the Greens, in that (for example) state ownership of our assets was not “locked in” during Ms Clark’s nine years in office.

        Now we stand to lose some of those assets.

        And how can some programmes be undone so rapidly?

        The next Labour/Green government must address this problem as a priority. There is no point in implementing things if they can be undone in a week, under ‘Urgency’.

        I am wondering if the concept of contracts can be applied here. Eg; the government contracts with, say, the NZ Super fund to deposit X millions per week/month, and makes the contract long-term.

        • Colonial Viper 25.2.2.1
          30 July 2011 at 11:43 pm

          One of the things that the last LAB govt poorly understood was the balance between social reform and economic reform. The Clark Govt thought that they could alter NZ for the long term through predominantly social reform (social liberalisation).

          Nope. What you get is a socially liberal country full of poor people. Which inevitably leads to intolerance and class hostility, which eventually undoes the social changes you tried to implement.

          And all the while the people continue to trust in the free markets and in debt based money. Ouch.

  26. Colonial Viper 26
    26 July 2011 at 4:16 pm

    The Right Wing commentators here are just side tracking off the issue – which is that the Left has been put under lethal attack by a Right Wing extremist, enough so to destabilise and change the future of the entire Norwegian Labour Party.

    There are simple questions to answer now. How do we face up to an increased threat level, how do we respond to it, what principles will we base our actions on. And what greater understandings of the Extreme Right do we need to develop.

    As 9/11 showed, the response after being attacked is at least as important as the attack itself.

  27. Bill 27
    26 July 2011 at 4:31 pm

    How do we face up to an increased threat level, how do we respond to it, what principles will we base our actions on.

    Get down off the fence. Abandon the delusional idea that capitalism can be made better. The ‘liberal project’ (not suggesting there was a conscious programme) has failed. The general situation of people has been degenerating over the past decades. Now liberals and liberal institutions/organisations are being put up as the fall guys for capitalism’s failings (in case you haven’t noticed).

    So either jump down from the fence or allow yourself to remain in the firing line.

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      26 July 2011 at 4:43 pm

      Whole heartedly agree.

      A softer, gentler, more caring capitalism is an illusion when the USD and the euro are both likely to collapse in short order.

      I figure NZ has roughly 10 years to get its energy, food production, transportation and economic affairs in order.

      Slow and steady and meandering is not going to do it; a revolution in thinking and action is required.

  28. gary 28
    26 July 2011 at 4:38 pm

    surprised no one has mentioned farrar’s comments on iran/iraq the other day: “I guess in the end, I should look on it like I did the Iran-Iraq war – you just want it to go on for ever, with maximum causalities.” ( http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/mair_v_laws.html) if thats not a phrase full of violent hate then i don’t know what is

  29. Vicky32 29
    27 July 2011 at 2:10 am

    The Christian bible*  does not condone violence in any way,** and while Christian figures started the Crusades, they weren’t religious at all, only political.***
     

     Like it or not, McFlock, he’s right about that… (and I know you won’t like it.) Also, r0b, I have got so sick of pointing out to atheists on various sites, the non-trvial difference between Judaism and Christianity, between the OT and the NT…

     

    • McFlock 29.1
      27 July 2011 at 1:29 pm

      I don’t particularly give a damn – but to argue that one lot of religious folk act solely on political motives, but another lot act solely on a narrow interpretation of a few verses of their holy book when the outcomes are exactly the same. . . that seems to be a long bow to draw.

    • mik e 29.2
      27 July 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Religon has been tied to politcs since the beginning of civilization its all about mine is better than yours CHILDISH CONFRONTATION THATS LEAD TO MOST MODERN WARS

      • Vicky32 29.2.1
        27 July 2011 at 5:06 pm

        CHILDISH CONFRONTATION THATS LEAD TO MOST MODERN WARS

        Using all caps is shouting. Very childish. Your post is content-free.

  30. Vicky32 30
    27 July 2011 at 5:25 pm
    27 July 2011 at 2:26 pm

    VICKY32 .The original bible was uncovered in 1933 reported in national geographic it is believed to be written by Jesuses wife as Jesus was a carpenter knew how build but not write, their are ancient sects of Christianity still spread through northern Egypt where this bible was found that predates all others found as well as parts of Iraq and Iran, in this Bible there is no reference to Jesus being able to do super human feats .So it fits into his ideal of not wanting to be a martyr and theres no reference to Mary being a prostitute,those were written in to the bible on Crete around 670ad by an empire which wanted to subjugate women and make a martyr out of Jesus.Then you have the dead sea scrolls which were hidden away by the catholic church for 1400years moved to the us in 1933 after the rise of Hitler.in 1978 time magazine used new congressional laws to stop the church hiding what was written on these scrolls and basically the same story it never refereed to any super human powers to Jesus in fact it pointed out that Jesus was a radical stone thrower protester who stood up for the under privileged rights. YEAH right

    Now you’ve well snookered yourself, mate, as I can guarantee that I have forgotten more than you’ll ever know, about the origin of the Bible, and its content. To begin with, which Mary are you talking about when you say “theres no reference to Mary being a prostitute”? Were you even aware that there are at at least 3 Marys? None of them is referred to by the Bible (more correctly, the New Testament) as being a prostitute. The Dead Sea scrolls weren’t even discovered 1400 years ago, (they were found in 1947) so your paranoid fantasy about “the church” hiding them for 1400 years is just that, a paranoid fantasy. Furthermore, everything in the Dead Sea Scrolls was written before Jesus lived, so there are no references to Jesus in them.
    Jesus may or may not have been able to write (internal evidence in the Gospels suggests that he could) but it’s irrelevant. No one except perhaps you, believes that Jesus wrote the Bible (again, I assume you mean the NT). Seriously, I suggest you read infidels.org or whatever your source material is, again. National Geographic is hardly an expert source on the subject of the Bible, any more than Popular Mechanics actually knows anything about 9/11! They probably actually referred to some Coptic  material having been found, and either you, or whatever loony site you’re plagiarising, got it all wrong.
    Here are some links you (and others) would do well to read…
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
    I don’t hold out much hope of making inroads into your ignorance, as you have too many reasons to want to believe the farrago of nonsense above, but I am giving the links in the hope that I am wrong, and you really would prefer to know the truth.

  31. mik e 31
    28 July 2011 at 2:09 am

    The oldest bible found the Sinai book was found in 1933 and their is no other writings found before this 26,000 alterations were found had been entered in this book. it won,t be completely xrayed and all entries deciphered for another 15years .Independent scientific research shows no evidence of any prior bible and the bible has been rewritten many times. Parts that claim Jesus had no super natural powers were discarded not published in later versions, that were used by the Byzantine kings as a tool for colonization. religious web sites tend to publish there own history that suits their belief.Ive the dead sea scrolls mixed up with parchments found sorry.ITS you and all other religions that believe in farrago nonsense like people who walk on water thats why most religions are anti science and have been trying to under mine science for centuries in case as it has evidence that uncovers the sham.

    • Vicky32 31.1
      28 July 2011 at 6:37 pm

      religious web sites tend to publish there own history that suits their belief.Ive the dead sea scrolls mixed up with parchments found sorry.ITS you and all other religions that believe in farrago nonsense like people who walk on water thats why most religions are anti science and have been trying to under mine science for centuries in case as it has evidence that uncovers the sham.

      Ma dai! I knew you would ignore the links, but one question – since when has Wikipedia been a ‘religious’ site?
      You’re talking complete cobblers, mate. I could refer you to a list of scientists who are or were what you’d call ‘religious’ (Christian and Muslim) but you would ignore that as well. Fair enough – as my old dad used to say “You can’t educate pork”…

  32. Colonial Viper 32
    28 July 2011 at 10:04 am

    Young New Zealand Born Girl Confirmed Killed

    Sadness.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10741310

    • Jum 32.1
      28 July 2011 at 11:57 am

      Colonial Viper

      Is it my imagination that both printed and television media are deliberately avoiding the fact that it was a deliberate attack on people who belong to the Labour Party. On Breakfast this morning it was just referred to as a ‘youth camp’.

      Then we have the piece you referred to.

      ‘Sharidyn had been a member of the party for around a year and her trip to Utoya Island with the group was her first.’ (no mention of what party in the entire article).

      What worries me is that apart from the New Zealand rightwing’s blatant political manipulation of media reporting, now every young person who goes to any youth camp will consider they are the hunted. It’s bad enough the killer had a goal and that was to kill anyone associated with social ideas that put all people at the front of policy not just a few but to now scare every parent globally that their child may be in danger if they leave the protection of their family is the really abhorrent fact.

      Maybe this media manipulation is only happening in New Zealand? I can point to other instances where lies or misleading statements have been made.

      This was an attack on Labour globally; that has to be made clear that left-leaning thinkers, including in New Zealand, need to watch their backs. It is an engineered attempt to scare these people into not having a say in their own countries. They need to support one another and stand up for democratic rights for everyone. Especially our children.

      • Colonial Viper 32.1.1
        30 July 2011 at 11:52 am

        Yes I notice that most (although not all) of the articles in the media have avoided discussion of the fact that it was a Labour Party camp. Very interesting.

        The right wing does like to feed the population a steady diet of fear and distrust of others.

    • Vicky32 32.2
      28 July 2011 at 6:46 pm

      She was a lovely child!

  33. Vicky32 33
    30 July 2011 at 10:21 pm

    The New Zealander of Pākehā idealisation is invariably white with blonde tints. Tāngata whenua are eviscerated from this peoplescape – we are tanned rather than brown.
    …………………
    The western tradition is a hungry man with a voracious appetite for control. He is avaristic and profane – innate qualities that enable him to rationalise his violence towards the natural world and towards other worldviews. His narcissistic personality disorder also enshrines his obsessive self-interest.

    Adele, I wasn’t going to get involved, but I simply could not stop myself when I read the above… Do you even see how much you’re generalising? Your first statement depends very strongly on place – and your second sentence in the first paragraph is complete nonsense. Perhaps the Tangata whenua would be more themselves if so many of the younger ones weren’t busy trying to make out that they live in L.A! (A comment inspired by a teenage Maori boy who got off the Pt Chev bus ahead of me today, struggling to hold up his trousers – what he’d no doubt call pants (so much was he doing what he’d call ‘low riding’!) 
    Western tradition is not wholly uniform. The man you describe as embodying that tradition is just a straw man.
     

    • Adele 33.1
      31 July 2011 at 9:18 am

      Teenaa koe Vicky32

      You cough at me for generalising while in the same hacking breath my worldview is reduced to a Māori boy losing his pants. Our rangatahi are dis-affected, dis-enfranchised and dis-enchanted. They have the highest suicide rates, the highest unemployment rates (28%), disproportionate imprisonment rates and an overall death rate that remains consistently higher than for non-Māori. That our rangatahi seek to emulate the attitudes and behaviours of black youth in America speaks volumes about their perceptions of our society and their place within it. Wake up to that.

      The western tradition is over-ruled by middle-class men. It’s a patriarchy dressed uniformly in a dark business suit. The majority of parliamentarians are westernised males, the majority of public servant leaders are westernised males, the majority of our business leaders are westernised males, the heads of our religious institutions are westernised males, the majority of health board leaders are westernised males, the majority of local government leaders are westernised males, the majority of educational leaders are westernised males, the majority of science leaders are westernised males. Hence why the western tradition is a he.

      He is avaristic – western democracies have commodified the natural world for sale to the highest bidder. The four elements now have a price tag and will be extracted to the very last drop. Profit is king and greed is business strategy.

      He is profane as the western tradition proclaims itself secular. Rationality is championed in science and evidenced based practise. Western religions are simply business empires (a business suit with a dog collar) and the ‘new age’ merely a business case for the mis-appropriation and repackaging of indigenous practises to feed a gluttonous consumer market. In the same sweeping generalisation indigenous relationships to land, waterways, oceans and mountains, are viewed as ‘animistic’ mumbo jumbo and an impediment to progress aka profit.

      His obsessive self-interest ignores the reality of others. He dismisses their plight as self-inflicted and privately thinks – good riddance. That brown men and women, and minority interests are able to participate in his worldview is purely at his largesse. Look around with eyes wide open and see it for yourself rather than focus your disdain on a poor Māori boy.

      • vto 33.1.1
        31 July 2011 at 9:35 am

        Adele, having read several of your posts including your latest further up this thread (yet AGAIN ascribing all sorts of assumptions to me and even going so far as to quote someone else as if it was me ha ha ha) and the one above in answer to vicky 32, I see that you clearly have a view of the world that is colouring any ability to see any other world. Vicky has the exact same struggle with you as I had.

        Best you get out more.

        out

        • Adele 33.1.1.1
          31 July 2011 at 2:52 pm

          Nothing you have stated thus far has disproven anything that I have said. Your ‘ha ha ha’ rings hollow in the circumstances. My mind actively pursues interests in two worldviews whereas yours appears to be constrained by a foreskin. Yup, I’m done.

      • Vicky32 33.1.2
        31 July 2011 at 3:34 pm

        He is avaristic – western democracies have commodified the natural world for sale to the highest bidder. The four elements now have a price tag and will be extracted to the very last drop. Profit is king and greed is business strategy.

        First, I take it you mean avaricious. Second,y, nonsense. Some people in western democracies have done as you say, but others, probably most of them, as we see in NZ, don’t agree.

        • Adele 33.1.2.1
          31 July 2011 at 4:22 pm

          No, I meant avaristic – avaricious didn’t sound blunt enough. I bend the language to suit within the rules.

          Secondly, give me an example in NZ where the natural world has not been commodified. If you are thinking the DOC estate, think again. The Pure NZ brand is an absolute joke and as recently as May this year the BBC hardtalking with Key cited that “half of New Zealand lakes and 90% of our lowland rivers are classed as polluted.” We have, between 2400 -3200 species of flora and fauna threatened with 648 acutely threatened (on the verge of extinction).

          When progress aka profit makes a demand the environment will suffer (drilling, coal mining, dams). To date our parliament has a clear mandate from “NZers” to effect such progress. So my position holds.

          • Vicky32 33.1.2.1.1
            31 July 2011 at 4:46 pm

            No, I meant avaristic – avaricious didn’t sound blunt enough. I bend the language to suit within the rules.

            Thing is, you can’t actually do that! Not if you wish to be understood… That word ‘avaristic’*has been niggling at me for days. All I could think, as I do when I see language being mis-used is “poorly educated angry woman”, and like it or not, what you say will be taken less seriously if you seem like a careless or ignorant person.

            When progress aka profit makes a demand the environment will suffer (drilling, coal mining, dams). To date our parliament has a clear mandate from “NZers” to effect such progress. So my position holds.

            From all NZers? Not likely! So, no, your position doesn’t hold. 
            *AFAIK, there’s no such word.

            • Adele 33.1.2.1.1.1
              31 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

              vicky32, Avaristic is a word because I created it. Call it a ‘derivation’ or a ‘portmanteau’ word but either way its a word now in existence. New words are created all the time and only the uninspired and uncreative stay within narrow borders.

              Hone Tuwhare was a great word-smith and he could make the english language flow as rain. Under your rigid doctrine the language is a block of ice. You obviously knew what I meant, and if you understood me than most likely all others did too.

              And stop with the passive aggressive deflections. (gosh, a sentence beginning with a conjunction)

              Also, did I say ALL NZers. No, I strongly inferred a majority of NZers (the numbers required to mandate a government to lead).

              Western democracies receive their mandate to act by majority opinion – the minority can go hug a tree. Fairly obvious I thought.

              • Vicky32 …
                31 July 2011 at 6:04 pm

                vicky32, Avaristic is a word because I created it. Call it a ‘derivation’ or a ‘portmanteau’ word but either way its a word now in existence. New words are created all the time and only the uninspired and uncreative stay within narrow borders.

                Give me a break! It may be a word but not because you’ve invented it. But I say it’s not a word unless others know what it means! It took me some time to realise that you probably meant avaricious, but that wasn’t immediately obvious. If it’s a portmanteau word, then with what have you combined avaricious – atavistic?
                The purpose of language is communication. One day, when you’re Shakespeare, Tuwhare or James Joyce, then you can invent words. Until then, try to be clear.

                • Adele …
                  31 July 2011 at 6:50 pm

                  Give me a break! It may be a word but not because you’ve invented it. But I say it’s not a word unless others know what it means! It took me some time to realise that you probably meant avaricious, but that wasn’t immediately obvious. If it’s a portmanteau word, then with what have you combined avaricious – atavistic?
                  The purpose of language is communication. One day, when you’re Shakespeare, Tuwhare or James Joyce, then you can invent words. Until then, try to be clear.

                  I would rather not give you a break as you don’t really deserve one.

                  Like I said if you could work it out than others could too – and probably in much less time. Avarice with a facial ‘tic’ is the portmanteau. The purpose of language is communication but then who decides what communication is acceptable in terms of language? Texting is an acceptable form of communication despite being incomprehensible to anyone over the age of 40 years.

                  And why Shakespeare and James Joyce when we have our own great writers to compare with: Patricia Grace, Briar Grace-Smith, Witi Ihimaera, Jacqueline Sturm, Keri Hulme, Apirana Taylor – to name but a few. And I am paid to write, are you?

                  • Vicky32 …
                    31 July 2011 at 7:19 pm

                    Texting is an acceptable form of communication despite being incomprehensible to anyone over the age of 40 years.

                    Speak for yourself lady! I text all the time, and have no trouble comprehending texts I recieve, some in textspeak, and in two different languages. But then my correspondents don’t randomly  invent words and expect me to know what I mean. I declare that I find your posts tedrepaggressonal. Can you figure out my neologism?

                    And why Shakespeare and James Joyce when we have our own great writers to compare with: Patricia Grace, Briar Grace-Smith, Witi Ihimaera, Jacqueline Sturm, Keri Hulme, Apirana Taylor – to name but a few. And I am paid to write, are you?

                    Keri Hulme sucks and blows, Witi Ihimaera is a plagiarist, Shakespeare and Joyce are both well-known for their coining of new words…
                    No, I am paid to teach language! But in previous years, yes, I was paid to write.

                    • Adele …
                      31 July 2011 at 10:15 pm

                      Well it’s not hard to figure out what you think of my posts neologism or not. Although your neologism does point to a thought disorder and bad spelling. When did your opinion become the benchmark for acceptable language usage and writing custom?

                      I am not about to confine my writing style to accord with your myopic views and I suspect that no matter how crystally clear I make any point it will be completely missed by you. Your views on language use are stuck in a utopian English past despite having the ability to text-speak in two languages – CHUR.

                      Having read some of your writings I am left with the impression of someone having too much time to waste. Part of good communication is not inducing within the recipient an overwhelming desire to jump in front of a Pt Chevalier bus.

                      I give you the last word as I have already extended too much time arguing a triviality.

  34. Frank Macskasy 34
    31 July 2011 at 1:06 am

    One thing that has always struck me as ‘curious’ about mess-shooters… Without exception, they always target the defenceless and the vulnerable.

    They never, ever, strike at, for example, a “gun fair” such as the type they have in the US.

    And if Breivik was so concerned about muslims, he had not one – but TWO wars where he could have enlisted amnd joined armies that are currently fighting a muslim enemy.

    And if it’s marxists he wanted to target – there are heaps of them in North Korea and Cuba.

    But instead, he picked an island filled with young, unarmed people. No marxists and no muslim extremists. Just young men and women of his own society.

    So why do these nuts target the innocent and unarmed?

    Because I suspect that these psychopaths are actually, deep down, cowards. They are afraid of a world they cannot understand, nor cope with, and where phantom ‘enemies’ are hiding around every corner.

    I admire the Norwegians. They have declared that they will maintain an open, democratic society.

    Could you imagine if a similar (gods forbid) situation occurred here in NZ? The government would be passing new laws at warp speed; increasing police powers; and making every effort to look like “they are doing something”.

    I guess this is another example of Europe being more mature, as a society, than New Zealand…

    • Pete George 34.1
      31 July 2011 at 7:00 am

      We have no idea what the government and public reactions would be if something happened like this in New Zealand. I’d like to think we would be more “Norwegian” than “American” but as you have done that’s pure speculation, on something I hope we will never need to prove.

      An interesting ally in the accusation of cowardice (which I suggested strongly yesterday). Redbaiter is back on Trueblue and it’s good to see he agrees on something:

      “The man who shot the socialists in Norway was a coward. He killed unarmed defenceless people.”

      I hope that means he’ll retract previous statements that he’d like to see all journalists and politicians strung up by his own revolution – that would be extremely cowardly too.

      Note: there’s a lot of the rest of his post I don’t agree with.

  35. Frank Macskasy 35
    31 July 2011 at 2:33 pm

    “We have no idea what the government and public reactions would be if something happened like this in New Zealand. ”

    Actually, we do.

    The David Gray mass-killing in Aramoana in November 1990.

    And of course, the September 11 attacks – whilst not in New Zealand – had far-reaching implications for nations around the world. We have increased the powers of surveillance, search, and seizure of the police and SIS, by several magnitudes.

    It is worthy to note that the arrests in the “Urewera 18” – originally arrested under terrorism laws – now face more “mundane” firearms charges. But their right toa jury trial has been severely curtailed, and their trial (whenever it finally happens) will be decided by a judge only.

    I’m sure those who are more knowledgeable in such matters can add more to what I’ve outlined. But on thing is clear; domestic and international acts of violence results in a “pavlovian”, knee-jerk reaction from Parliamentary law-makers. Politicians need to be seen to be Doing Something.

    If our Norwegian cuzzies can resist this the temptation to this kind of knee-jerk response, then they are indeed a more mature society than we are, at present.

    • Colonial Viper 35.1
      31 July 2011 at 2:59 pm

      >99% of the time, the less transparency and the more concealment occurs, the more likely it is that good democratic processes are not being followed.

      And that eventually allows the rot of bad practices and dubious application of power to grow.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.