In a previous life, ie., before becoming a Compulsion Touter, Trevor was The Free Radical's
archivist extraodinaire. Sadly, none of his encyclopaedic exposés of socialist wildlife written for TFR are presently online, although they shortly will be, but his blog has kicked off today by reviving one of his gems of research to point out that Keith Locke's naked hypocrisy over his condemnation of more NZ SAS troops being sent to Afghanistan, when the February 1980 issue of 'Socialist Action' (which Mr Locke edited) [contained] an article on a talk Mr Locke gave Wellington "Why workers should support Soviet Action in Afghanistan."Sprung, Mr Locke -- you dopy hypocrite. Paint yourself out of that corner.
5 comments:
I'm guessing he's changed his views? You seem to have confused the vice of hypocrisy with the virtue of open-mindedness. I would certainly be more critical of anyone so dogmatic as to have learnt nothing new in 25 long years...
The hypocrisy of the left (which was prevalent among some on the right too) was to damn the enemies of their friends, but not their friends. Anyone anti-American got praise from the likes of Locke in the 70s and 80s, whether it be the Khmer Rouge, USSR, GDR, Cuba and so many STILL look up to Cuba (Matt Robson's trip in the past year is a prime example). It is like condemning Hitler but not Stalin. However, it is also like praising Pinochet - Thatcher's biggest blunder in my view.
AL, PC was criticising Locke for an apparent inconsistency between his present position and his position of 25 years ago. This is an extremely easy criticism to avoid. Locke can simply repudiate his comments from 25 years ago, saying he's changed his mind, and no longer thinks the Soviet aggression was justified. Simple. No more inconsistency.
I don't know whether that's his actual position or not. But it's plausible, and the most charitable interpretation. Certainly more appropriate than jumping to conclusions like PC has. Dredging up comments from 25 years ago is no evidence of any inconsistency or "hypocrisy" in someone's present thoughts.
This point is so obvious that I don't see how you all managed to missed it. Wishful thinking and confirmation bias, I suppose. Making your enemies look bad becomes more important than establishing, through sound arguments, that they really are. Sad, really.
'Locke can simply repudiate his comments from 25 yrs ago (etc)'
Yes, but he hasn't, has he. And I doubt he will for the reasons made by Libertyscott.
Just as I believe he has never repudiated the comments made in an (Auck Uni?) article entitled 'Victory for Humanity: Cambodia Liberated' in the 70's while at varsity.
His liberator being another old commie, Pol Pot, who managed to exterminate several million of his fellow citizens.
Funny bloody liberation. Funny bloody humanity.
'Locke can simply repudiate his comments from 25 yrs ago, (etc)'
Yes, but he hasn't, has he? And I doubt he will for the reasons made by Libertyscott.
Just as I believe he has never repudiated the comments made in an (Auck Uni?) article entitled 'Victory for Humanity: Cambodia Liberated' in the 70's while at varsity.
His liberator being another old commie, Pol Pot, who managed to exterminate several million of his fellow citizens.
Funny bloody liberation. Funny bloody humanity.
Post a Comment