Friday, 9 December 2005

Frog shows red underbelly

There are some things that a personal blog like 'Not PC' can get away with, but an official political party blog just can't, no matter how many 'don't-try-this-at-home' riders are put on a piece.

Prededed by the smiling disclaimer that "I present this as entertainment, it is NOT a recommendation," the Green Party's 'Frog Blog' has posted a situationalist manifesto calling for an end to capitalism through 'decadent action.' As the poet said, "Many a true word hath been spoken in jest." Here's a sample from the Frog's Friday-afternoon 'humour':
8. Terrorism and violence against the state can be fun but make sure you get the right tools for the job. Sawn off shot guns are crude and could snag your clothes. In short, if you’re going to shoot a cop - make sure you use a nice gun.
Advice is then given on appropriate heroes to learn from. Included in this bloodstained list:
  • Valerie Solanis - famous for attempting to murder Andy Warhol, and founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM);
  • Baader and Meinhof - trained by the PLO and the founders and leaders of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist organisation, Baader and Meinhof were serial killers who killed and planned the killing of dozens of Germans in the seventies.
  • Noam Chomsksy - apologist for the September 11 attacks, and like Keith Locke, a Pol Pot sympathiser.
  • Harry Roberts - "the instigator of the Massacre of Braybrook Street, a triple-murder of policemen in 1966.."
This is the sort of stuff that shouldn't even be joked about, particularly by the official outlet of a parliamentary political party. As Shakespeare warned, "'Jesters do oft prove prophets." Given that too many violent nutbars over the last century, including Che, Castro, Mao and Pol Pot -- whose faces have all at some stage appeared on the various Green Party MPs' bedroom walls -- have taken this sort of exhortation seriously, seems to me that the 'non-violent' Frog has this time gone too far in exposing his vicious red underbelly.

[Anyone want to take bets how long it takes before we hear all the 'Oh, we're only joking'; 'No sense of humour' etc. from the Frog and his Party? It'll probably be my fault for taking offence.]

Linked Post: Consumerism may yet eat its own tail - Green Party


  1. Revolting and defenceless.

  2. The Greens are in a state of inertia since RD was decarbonised.

    The central pillars of their religion has been falling apart since the red queen locked them in the basement corner they had painted themselves into during the elections.

    Since then the pillars of their religion such as

    1)kyoto(terminally ill)
    2)peak oil(fallacy of nuclear proponents and merchant banks)
    3)Globalization and free trade(the largest world wide growth in history)
    4)Organics and alternative medicine (snake oil at best and toxic at worst)
    5)UN (money laundering organisation for leftwing proponents)

    Easily understanable why they have brought the dinosaurs out of the Jurassic closet it is the desperation of an endangered species.

  3. It's all about Shakespeare this week isn't it?

  4. You're forgetting the option "It was just an experiment!".

  5. Robert Winefield10 Dec 2005, 03:31:00

    "...In short, if you’re going to shoot a cop - make sure you use a nice gun."

    PC, would you do me a favour (seeing as I can't see to login to Frog-blog) and post this on their site. Here's a guy who followed their advice - they should be so proud.

    5 July 2002, NZ Police Detective Constable’s Duncan Taylor and Jeanette Park were following a young local resident by the name of Daniel Luff, to the Cocker farmhouse on Taipo Rd, Rongotea. The Police officers were there to serve a protection order against Luff. Luff was miffed that Stephanie Cocker had dumped him the previous week and wasn't taking NO for an answer.

    Luff reached the farmhouse first and his presence caused the Cocker household to barricade themselves inside their farmhouse fearing for their lives.

    When the Police officers arrived, DC Taylor confronted Luff. When Luff lept out of his vehicle he was armed with a stolen, high-powered rifle (the perfect "firearm" for killing police officers). He shot Taylor (unarmed) in the chest at point blank range - killing him instantly. Taylor smirked, reloaded and attempted to kill Taylor's partner (DC Jeanette Park)- discharging 3 rounds, hitting her once in the thigh with one round and barely missing her head with a second. Bleeding, in shock and totally defenceless, DC Jeanette Park managed to drag herself 700 m to a telephone in order to raise the alarm.

    Meanwhile Luff broke into the farmhouse and held the occupants hostage. The siege lasted 4 hours before Luff was forced out of the house by tear-gas.

    So there you have it. A nineteen year old with a "nice" rifle kills one policeman, seriously wounds another. I suppose frog-blog would argue (in jest of course) that the cops deserved it because they interrupted his attempt to terrorise his ex-girlfriend and kidnap her parents.

    Fuck that was funny wasn't it.

    Then there's the hilarious tale of Stan Graham. He killed three police officers (and four civilians) with a rifle in 1931 when he went on a rampage in Koiterangi.

    And what about jolly old David Gray. November 13 1990, in Aramoana Gray decides to settle an argument with his neighbour by shooting him and his daughter with a rifle. After burning down his neighbour's house, Gray decided that shooting children was fun and killed all three of Ross Percy's children, then Ross himself as they drove past the first crime scene on their way home.

    Gray killed five more people before he gunned down Sergeant Stewart Guthrie of the Port Chalmers Police. Gutherie had had the temerity to drive down from Port Chalmers to stop Gray's killing spree.

    Damn, the guys at Frog-blog must be splitting their sides from laughing so much. Five cops all shot with "nice guns."

    Frog-blog isn't funny, it's just fucking sick. And the NZ Green Party disgust me because they sanction this excrement.

  6. Yes that's what I think too Robert.

    PC, for sure you should take the above to the FB in your own name.

  7. The Greens will just think Robert's post is evidence the public should not be allowed guns.

  8. Robert Winefield10 Dec 2005, 13:34:00

    Probably, you could refer them to the fact that Luff's firearm was stolen. Or you could mention the way Carlos "The Rock" Namana killed Constable Murray Stretch in Mangakino in 1999. He stomped on Stretch's face until Stretch was dead. This one week after telling Stretch that "I am the Rock. I am the Rock and take on the Rock and I am going to kill you."

    And before that he was convicted of assaulting three police officers, including Constable Stretch, and of setting fire to the Mangakino police station.

    What would is Namana's case convince them to ban? Boots and matches?

  9. Perhaps I should post the rebuttal to the "Keith Locke was a Pol Pot sympathiser" from flogblog, as despite the fact you linked to it here, you clearly didn't read it.

    The fact of the matter is that Keith, as did anti-war liberals throughout the West including the United States, welcomed the toppling of the corrupt US-backed dictatorships in Saigon and Phnom Penh in April 1975, which heralded the end of the Indo-China War. They hoped the new Vietnamese and Cambodian Governments would be better than the brutal regimes they replaced. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge was generally seen as an adjunct of the Vietnamese Communist forces. Subsequently, of course, they turned out to be quite different - in fact, genocidal. At the time, Pol Pot wasn’t even known to exist. His name and crimes didn’t emerge for some time.

    The main topic of this post does not really deserve comment, but I thought I'd at least try to correct the rampant codswallop.

  10. Sam, As you note, I did link to the Flog Blog so readers could at least see that a defence was being offered on one of the charges made in Trevor's article, and to let them judge for themselves.

    However, in answer to your point here, and as Trevor Loudon has pointed out on his own site, unlike Keith and Noam Chomsky, many of those 'anti-war liberals' grew up, realised their error and resiled from their earlier stupidity. To my knowledge, Keith never has. If you have evidence that he has resiled from his earlier support for what and aplogised for it to the families of those murdered Cambodians then I'd be very pleased to see it. His speech in the House on this matter simply offers excuses without apology.

    In any case, I don't agree that the Khmer Rouge were in any way an unknown quantity at the time, certainly not to a good Maoist like Keith. The genocide began literally on the afternoon of the Khmer Rouge occupation of Phnom Phenh. RJ Rummel points out in his book 'Death by Government' that "No other megamurderer comes even close to the lethality of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during their 1975 through 1978 rule. As described in Chapter 9 of Death By Government, in less than four years of governing they exterminated over 31 percent of their men, women, and children; the odds of any Cambodian surviving these four long years was only about 2.2 to 1." There was plenty of time them and plenty since for Keith to resile and try to make amends. He hasn't.

    Let me quote Trevor Loudon on this point:
    "I'm sure Keith Locke didn't know that Pol Pot would be as bad as he was. Locke did however know that the Khmer Rouge were hard core Maoists and that their victory was likely to lead to the mass killing of "class enemies". It happened in China, why wouldn't it happen in Cambodia? Where is the public apology to the Cambodian people for his monumental error of judgement. Before WW2 many Europeans backed Hitler. They didn't know how barbaric Hitler was going to be either, yet history still rightly judges them extremely harshly. Why should Locke be judged any more leniently?"

    Why indeed?

  11. I simply don't understand why the description you give for the linked article on the Greens' site is completely contrary to the content. He details many things that he did to alert the world and the New Zealand government to the problem.

    And I'm not sure what you mean by saying he hasn't resiled from his earlier stupidity. He was trying hard in the 80's to get Pol Pot's regime to not be recognised. Yet this is not resiling? I don't follow your argument.

  12. "I simply don't understand why the description you give for the linked article on the Greens' site is completely contrary to the content." I dont agree that it is contrary to the content, Sam, but the link is there so you can judge it for yourself. AS I say above, many of those 'anti-war liberals' that Flog Blog mentions grew up, realised their error and resiled from their earlier stupidity. Even so, just to say that others too were mistaken in their praise of the Khmer Rouge is hardly an apology for that stupidity, especially when it's not clear that one has actually shown contrition for it. AS I also say above, " His speech in the House on this matter simply offers excuses without apology." But the link is there so you can judge for yourself.

    Keith for example maintains in his various statements on this matter that he didn't know anything about the Khmer Rouge prior to their take-over of Phnom Penh. Why then did he support the take-over? Just because they were communist, like him? Or because the Khmer Rouge were backed by Communist China, and being a good Maoist he figured he'd better toe the party line. You'd think just knowing what happened in Mao's Cultural Revolution when 'class enemies' were murdered might at least have given him cause for pause in his support, but it didn't. You might have thought that before praising these 'liberators' in 1975, he might have first found out for example, that the 'liberation' in 1974 by the Khmer Rouge of the old capital of Odonk, north of Phnom Penh, led to the city being destroyed, its 20,000 inhabitants being dispersed into the countryside, and its teachers and public servants being executed. Was Keith really not aware of that?

    When did he begin to resile from his praise of the Khmer Rouge, do you think?

    When he heard that Phnom Penh's entire population of over two million was marched into the countryside at gunpoint?
    When 'Year Zero' was declared in April 1975 (the month Keith published his piece 'Cambodia Liberated: Victory For Humanity')? 'Year Zero,' by the way, was a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favour of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state; anything there that Keith would disagree with? Or the writers of the Flog Blog?

    Was Keith against all that? If so, he was pretty damn quiet about it.

    Did he perhaps resile from his praise when foreigners were expelled, embassies closed, and the currency abolished?
    When markets, schools, newspapers, religious practices and private property were outlawed?
    When members of the Lon Nol government, public servants, police, military officers, teachers, ethnic Vietnamese, Christian clergy, Muslim leaders, members of the Cham Muslim minority, members of the middle-class and the educated were identified and executed?

    Did he perhaps resile then? I ask, because all this happened in the first year of occcupation, so there was plenty of evidence about that there was nothing here worthy of praise, and as editor of the 'Socialist Action' rag, he had plenty of opportunities to say 'Whoops!' He didn't then, so I wonder when you say he did, and why if you say he did it took him so long?

    Sam, you then say: "And I'm not sure what you mean by saying he hasn't resiled from his earlier stupidity." Well, that's why I included all these links there (about with Trevor Loudon is a little remiss, I think), so that you can judge for yourself whether he has resiled or not. Considering the extent of the slaughter, I would have thought a clear statement of contrition at the first opportunity would have been the least of the things an honest man would have done when he found out the movement he endorsed was murdering everyone they could lay their hands on. I don't see that clear statement of contrition anywhere; there is never any sign that Keith accepts he was in specific error to praise the take-over of Cambodia by the communist Khmer Rouge, or that he has ever recognised that armed overthrow of a country by a communist dictatorship -- or indeed, any dictatorship of any stripe -- is not in general something one should be celebrating.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.